Richard Caborn: Just before I answer the question, I believe that most of the House would like to share in our deep sense of disappointment at England's early exist from the World cup on Saturday, but it would be wrong if the House did not thank David Beckham, who has captained the England team for more than five years. Let me also thank him for the support that he gave to help London in securing the Olympic bid. To Sven—dreams were not realised, but I wish him the best for the future. To Steve McClaren—the man at the helm now—good luck, and I thank him for meeting some of the 300 young people who took part on Saturday; he realised their dreams.
	The answer to the question— [ Interruption. ] Quite honestly, Opposition Members are being churlish when the World cup has been one of our biggest sporting events for many years.
	There is no dedicated funding stream for sports villages, but between 2001 and 2006, the Government have invested about £1 billion of lottery and Exchequer funding in sports facilities, which represents the biggest sports facilities investment programme in decades. Derek Mapp, the ex-chair of East Midlands Development Agency, is currently leading a feasibility study looking at how this interesting and innovative concept might be developed further. The study will look at whether sports villages —[ Interruption. ] If Opposition Members listen, they might discover that there is to be one in their area. The study will consider whether sports villages have the potential to contribute to the regeneration and sustainability of communities on a wide range of fronts, as well as a role in delivering the Olympic 2012 legacy.

Derek Wyatt: The Minister for Sport, my right hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Central (Mr. Caborn) started off the bridge project, so I should thank him publicly.
	Has my hon. Friend had a chance to talk to the Secretary of State for Education and Skills? We have hundreds and hundreds of specialist computer and technology schools, and one of the cheapest ways in which we could carry out the switchover would be to charge those schools with the task of being the local hub for switchover—to go into old people's homes, to liaise and so on. That would save us millions of pounds and generate great community spirit in those centres.

Shaun Woodward: The hon. Gentleman raises an important point. Yes, we are aware of the report. Yes, we are in discussion with manufacturers about it and yes, it is our intention, when switchover takes place, for special codes to be introduced. It is not a problem that applies only to digital switchover; it applies to all digital equipment—mobile phone recharger units and just about everything in the house that uses the digital system. The Government are aware of the issue and are confronting it. I am sure that there will be bipartisan support for our efforts.

Andrew MacKay: Is not the Secretary of State concerned that there is a lack of public awareness and that there are still people buying analogue televisions? Is there not much more that the right hon. Lady's Department needs to do so that when switchover takes place in18 months' time it is not another Government failure?

Richard Caborn: I have heard some rubbish from this Dispatch Box, but that is the biggest load of rubbish that I have heard for a long time. We have put into place the most transparent system—arm's length from Government and my Department—to make an objective analysis of where the casinos should go. The confusion arose in the minds of Opposition Members when they decided to take the number of regional casinos from eight to one. They are now trying to get out of the issue politically and to blame the Government. That representation is totally untrue. We will stand by what we put in the 2005 Act and the process, which is transparent and fair. If people want to make a legal challenge, let them get on with it and take us to the courts.

David Lammy: If I were not aware that my right hon. Friend is a trustee of the royal parks, that would be seriously remiss of me given that I have spent quite a lot of time over the past year in the royal parks, meeting Friends of the Royal Parks and the chief executive.
	The hon. Gentleman's tastes may well not be the same as those of Londoners and much of the country, but the Prince's Trust concert and the success of Live8 indicate that the Royal Parks Agency has been very successful at some of the events that it has put on. However, he is right that there is a balance to be struck between those events and the more reflective enjoyment of those in the parks. That is why this year there have been fewer events in Hyde park. We keep those things under review, working with the Royal Parks Agency and, as I said, I shall be meeting the chief executive shortly.
	As to the money, the hon. Gentleman should remember that the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee said in his report that there was
	"untapped potential for the Agency to generate income from its considerable assets."
	It is right that the Government bear that in mind when making their grant in aid.

David Taylor: On a beautiful day like today it is obvious how very many people—visitors to London, those who work in the city and tourists—make intensive use of the royal parks such as Hyde park, Richmond park,St. James's park and so on. Would the Minister care to pay tribute to the work of the Royal Parks constabulary, which is responsible for the safety, enjoyment and relaxation of those many people in the parks, and will he lay to rest the rumour that it may fall victim to the merger mania of forces and be absorbed by the Metropolitan police? That would be a dreadful step, would it not?

Mark Field: In answer to the hon. Member for North-West Leicestershire (David Taylor), the merger has already taken place. The Royal Parks constabulary is now part of the Metropolitan police; I am assuming that the Minister was aware of that fact.
	As my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Sussex(Mr. Soames) rightly pointed out, our royal parks should be an oasis of calm and quiet contemplation for Londoners, commuters and tourists alike. The notion that in summer 2012 they should become one huge campsite to house those in London for the Olympic games, as suggested by the Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, the hon. Member forSt. Helens, South (Mr. Woodward), is barmy. It is also in direct breach of the assurances given by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport in this House in a debate initiated by me on 24 May 2004. Moneys can be raised to preserve the royal parks by other means, as my hon. Friend the Member for East Devon (Mr. Swire) will point out—he was acting as an auctioneer at one such event last week. Will the Minister assure us that he will keep the Treasury at bay and his Department's hands off our royal parks?

David Lammy: I truly enjoyed my trip to Hull on Monday last week to join my hon. Friend and many other colleagues on the trip to the Wilberforce museum. Hull has been key to the development of the training resource. It is important that teachers are able to discuss sensitive and difficult issues at key stage 3 and have the right materials to do that. Hull has been absolutely brilliant, especially in its work with the National Maritime museum to develop those resources. I wish everyone in Hull the best of luck for the launch of WISE on Friday. I understand that Desmond Tutu is the president of that important new research facility. The work done at Hull, together with work carried out in Liverpool, Bristol and London, will help to ensure that the commemorations and celebrations of the abolition of slavery next year are a huge success.

John Grogan: Does my right hon. Friend share my concern that the lack of cricket coverage on free-to-air TV might have an adverse effect on the number of children who regularly play the sport? On average, only 200,000 viewers watch Sky's coverage, compared with a peak of 8 million or9 million people who watched Channel 4's coverage last year. Does he also accept the good wishes of many cricket followers for the talks that he is initiating with broadcasters? There is widespread hope that that might lead to the return of at least some live test match cricket coverage to free-to-air TV.

Lynda Waltho: What assessment she has made of the impact on consumers, licensees and community groups of the LicensingAct 2003; and if she will make a statement.

Shaun Woodward: I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman would extend his normal courtesies to whomever he met on a beach, or in any other place that he happened to wander around. The fact is that we are conducting are a review of the 2003 Act's implementation, and, as he will be aware, we are consulting widely. But at the moment, the overwhelming evidence is that—subject to marginal changes that need to be made, and which we have committed ourselves to being prepared to make, if the evidence is there to support making them—the changes brought in by this Act have improved the regulatory regime for those in business and for the consumer.

Alan Williams: The National Audit Office will present its annual report and accounts to Parliament later this month, setting out its achievements for the year to 31 March 2006 and how it has used its resources. During the year, the NAO produced 61 major reports on the value for money achieved by Departments in using resources across a range of public expenditure. Examples include returning failed asylum seekers, progress in improving Government efficiency, and the failure of MG Rover. The Comptroller and Auditor General certified more than 500 accounts during the year and I know that the House will congratulate the NAO on identifying£555 million-worth of financial savings arising from its work in 2005—a return of more than £8 for every pound funded by Parliament. The Public Accounts Commission will have the opportunity to examine the NAO's performance on the House's behalf when it meets to consider the NAO's corporate plan tomorrow.

Stuart Bell: Repair costs for individual cathedrals are not held centrally. However, by way of a statement, an English Heritage survey in 2002 identified£39 million worth of essential structural repairs needed in England's 61 cathedrals.

Stuart Bell: You will be pleased to know,Mr. Speaker, as will the hon. Gentleman, that I regularly chat to the Chancellor on several matters pertaining to the Church. We are grateful to him for his listed places of worship grant scheme, whereby last year in England £12,498,019 was paid out in reimbursement of VAT on church repairs alone.

Stuart Bell: I read the Dean of Southwark in the newspapers with interest, and I well understand the hon. Gentleman's position. I am, however, responsible for the Church of England, not for the other denominations to which he refers.

"Building Faith in the Future"

Ben Chapman: What progress has been made in implementing the recommendations in the paper, "Building Faith in the Future"; and if he will make a statement.

Ben Chapman: Given the potential for church tourism to support and maintain church buildings at the heart of many of our local communities, will my hon. Friend do his best to ensure a co-ordinated approach to the development of church tourism, involving the Church Commissioners, the Government, the tourist industry and the Department for Culture, Media and Sport?

Tom Watson: Before I answer the hon. Gentleman's question, I am sure that the whole House will join me in offering our condolences to the families of Corporal Thorpe and Lance Corporal Hashmi, the two soldiers killed on Saturday in Helmand province along with their interpreter. I have no doubt either that I speak for the House in wishing a speedy recovery to the five soldiers injured in the same attack. Our thoughts and prayers are with them all.
	I should also explain that, given the time when you decided to take the urgent question, Mr. Speaker, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has been unable to return to the House in time from his constituency. I apologise on his behalf.
	The losses of life that our forces have suffered over the past few weeks are a tragedy. However, they do not mean that our mission in Afghanistan is somehow confused. The position of our armed forces in Afghanistan is clear. First and foremost, our troops are in Afghanistan to ensure that never again is it is a safe haven for the likes of al-Qaeda and the Taliban. Quite simply, the risks are too great to us, our allies, and the Afghan people for us to stand aside and allow the terrorists to return. That overriding aim was clear when my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary announced our deployment to Helmand last January, and it is clear today.
	Our forces are our contribution to the expansion of the UN-authorised and NATO-led international security assistance force—ISAF. It is not only a British mission. Danish and Estonian troops are embedded into our forces in Helmand. Overall, 36 nations provide troops for ISAF. They, too, have had their casualties. A Romanian soldier was killed last month and Canadian and US troops have also died.
	Our troops are there to help foster the environment in which the Afghans, with the support of the wider international community, can develop sustainable governing institutions and spread the authority of central Government across the country. They are there to help build up the Afghan security forces. They are there to help set the conditions for developing the Afghan economy and infrastructure. That means that we also help put in place the sort of environment in which the Afghans, again with international support, can make an impact on the narcotics trade.
	Yes, our armed forces have been in action against the Taliban. That was only to be expected. That was why we sent an air-mobile battlegroup, artillery and Apache attack helicopters. Let me be candid. We would not have deployed such a formidable package if we did not think that there was a genuine threat to the safety of our armed forces. It was not pulled together on a whim. We did not pick and choose. We sent what the top military advice in the country—the chiefs of staff—said that we should send. So I want to make it absolutely plain that there has never been a sense that our aims and objectives were unfocused.
	Of course, as with any operation, we keep our forces under review. The House will know that we regularly announce force changes for Iraq, as various formations are deployed in and out of that theatre. Afghanistan is no different, and we are working through such a process now. The hon. Gentleman will know that it is the intention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to make an announcement on the roulement of 16 Air Assault Brigade before the recess, but he will not do so until he has received the advice of the chiefs of staff on the precise details of the roulement. That will form part of a much wider NATO process that will be under way in July.
	The House will understand that I cannot go into more detail now. However, right hon. and hon. Members can be assured that, despite press reports today, commanders have not asked for extra infantry or air cover. We do not go into matters such as these in detail, for reasons that the House will understand, but I can go as far as to say that the latest requests to the chiefs of staff, which are part of the planned ongoing analysis, include requests for enablers and engineering equipment. I want to make it clear that these requests were expected from the outset and that we expect more requests from theatre as the campaign continues. If they include "combat" elements, we will consider them seriously and immediately, as we always do.
	I must stress, however, that we are only at the start of our three-year operation. Our forces in Helmand only reached their full operating capability this weekend, and there is still much to do. We all know that the democratically elected Afghan Government have had little sway in Helmand. It is inevitable that the earliest stages of such an operation will focus heavily on helping the Afghans to create security and stability. Only then can our wider aid and development programmes go forward unimpeded. They have already begun, and once they are fully under way, they will in turn reinforce security and stability as Helmand's legitimate economy grows and the rule of law expands, and as we curb the influence of the Taliban and the drugs traffickers.
	I shall say one final thing. We are committed to the success of the wider international project to help to rebuild Afghanistan, and we can best do that by making a real contribution—political, developmental and military—to the stabilisation of Helmand. Our armed forces are doing a magnificent job in making that happen, and they should continue to receive the full support of all of us in the House.

Paul Flynn: After five years of attempts to destroy the poppy trade, this year's harvest will be the highest ever and the price of heroin on the streets of Britain will be the lowest ever. The last Secretary of State for Defence said that the Helmand venture would end in three years without a shot being fired. What we are now seeing in the formerly peaceful area of Helmand is bitter resentment, not among the Taliban but among the ordinary people: murderous resentment of our troops. If we are sucked into a war in Afghanistan, it could deteriorate into a British Vietnam and provoke Afghani terrorism on the streets of Britain. When will we explain to our American friends and to our Government that it is not possible to win hearts and minds by using bombs and bullets?

Malcolm Rifkind: Will the Minister repudiate the view expressed by the Minister for Europe last week that the present Taliban fighting in Helmand in the south constitutes the most serious Taliban offensive in the past four years? Will the Minister, so far as current policy is concerned, not only ensure that British capability is enhanced, but resist pressure from the Pentagon to use the presence of ISAF in the south as an excuse to reduce American forces? Will he make greater efforts to achieve a single unified command between ISAF and Operation Enduring Freedom, to ensure the best use of western resources?

Tom Watson: The Chiefs of Staff are no shrinking violets, and they are not backwards at coming forwards, as they say on West Bromwich high street, but the right hon. Gentleman makes an important point. I reread the debate in January when my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary announced our deployment. He said that the mission was clear and that there could be no security and stability if insurgents, illegal armed groups and the drugs trade were not tackled. Our role is to help the Afghans to do just that. Only then will the Afghan Government, with support from the international community, be able to set about the long and difficult task of reconstruction and development. I am pleased that the right hon. Gentleman joins us in that goal.

ESTIMATES DAY
	 — 
	[3rd Allotted Day]
	 — 
	ESTIMATES 2006-07

[Relevant documents: Fifth report from the Science and Technology Committee, Session 2004-05, HC7, on Human reproductive Technologies and the Law and the Government's response thereto, Cm 6641; Eighth Special Report from the Science and Technology Committee, Session 2004-05, HC 491, on the Inquiry into Human Reproductive Technologies and the Law; the Department of Health departmental report 2005, Cm 6524.]
	 This Estimate is to be considered in so far as it relates to a grant-in-aid to the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (Resolution of 27 June).
	 Motion made, and Question proposed,
	That, for the year ending with 31st March 2007, for expenditure by the Department of Health—
	(1) further resources, not exceeding £37,417,520,000, be authorised for use as set out in HC 1035,
	(2) a further sum, not exceeding £38,276,451,000, be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund to meet the costs as so set out, and
	(3) limits as so set out be set on appropriations in aid.— [Liz Blackman.]

Phil Willis: I welcome the opportunity to debate this important and topical issue on the Floor of the House. I once again pay tribute to the former Chairman of the Science and Technology Committee, the hon. Member for Norwich, North (Dr. Gibson), and members of the previous Committee on producing an extremely thorough and thoughtful report shortly before the 2005 general election.
	Few areas of medical and social policy command greater interest or promote greater controversy than research and clinical practice in the area of human reproductive technologies. Producing the report was in itself a considerable challenge. It is no secret that at least half the membership of the Committee disagreed with the report. Well, some people disagreed with it, and it was a real challenge to agree on a final report to bring before the House. That reflects the divisions not only in the Committee but in society on these issues. There would have been something strange about an all-party Committee that did not have significant disagreements on this subject.
	In spite of the difficulties in arriving at a consensus, the Committee was right to tackle the question. It is surely the job of Parliament to lead debate and not to shy away from key issues of public concern, however divisive they may prove to be. I would argue that this is a good example of the Select Committee system in operation: not simply scrutinising but helping to influence policy.
	The Committee's inquiry began in late 2003. They began because the Committee had serious concerns about the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority. The Government said that they would keep the HFEA under review. The Science and Technology Committee thought that that was not good enough. The Chairman said that the HFEA should be reconnected with the 1990 legislation. That was one of the reasons behind the inquiry. A year later, in 2004, the Department of Health announced its own review of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990. The Department sensibly waited for the Committee to produce its report before issuing a consultation alongside its response in August 2005.
	The results of the consultation were published in March of this year, and further announcements are promised for the summer. The Government should be commended for the way in which they have responded to the Committee's work. However, after a lengthy period of consultation—it is well over a year now—I think that the time has come for the Government to come forward with firm proposals, and, I hope, to produce a Bill in draft form.
	A Bill is required anyhow to facilitate the creation of the new regulatory authority for tissue and embryos—RATE—from the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority and the Human Tissue Authority, which the Government have pledged to do by 2008. I commend to the Minister a draft Bill which would give the House an opportunity to debate and scrutinise some of the recommendations that will emerge from the Government's consultation. I hope that today's debate, and the Minister's appearance before the Science and Technology Committee next week, will stimulate some decision making on the role of the new authority and related issues.
	Before tackling some of the more controversial aspects of the Committee's report, I shall outline the boundaries of the debate. I shall do so by stressing areas of agreement on the fundamental issues, which are unlikely to change. Both the Government and the Committee agreed with the gradualist approach to the status of the embryo adopted by the original Warnock Committee. I acknowledge that there are those who may disagree with this approach. However, I do not think that there is any realistic chance of it being dropped now for the purpose of legislation—so I think that we must start with the premise of the gradualist approach.
	I think that there is general agreement that assisted reproduction is a legitimate area of interest for the state. It is only the extent of that interest that is in question. That in vitro fertilisation is now a common clinical procedure is not in question. The Government agree that legislation should take account of consequent changes in public perception, and that is what the debate is all about. The question is: how far are we prepared to accept assisted reproduction being regulated like other medical procedures, and what additional safeguards are required to protect the human embryo and the future child?
	Other points on which the Government agree with the Committee are that there is a need for greater clarity in the policy-making functions of HFEA, and that legislation covering abortion should be removed from the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act. I will return to that point later. The Government also agree with the Committee that there is a need for some rationalisation of existing bodies. These areas of broad agreement provide a solid foundation for debate on other matters of principle, such as the extent and nature of Government intervention in reproductive health.
	There are, of course, areas of disagreement. That is not surprising. The Committee made 104 recommendations. It is interesting that the Government rejected very few of them outright. Indeed, rather than do so, the Government chose instead to consult more widely to gauge professional and public opinion. Not surprisingly, there was disagreement over the Government's use of the precautionary principle. I am rather pleased that my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris) is not here to make a speech. He is delayed and has sent his apologies to the House. We have just spent a considerable amount of time discussing the precautionary principle in a new inquiry, and we have not come to any sensible conclusion. The hon. Member for Braintree (Mr. Newmark) nods from a sedentary position. The Committee's recommendation to include the Human Genetics Commission in the new regulatory body was a rationalisation too far for the Government, but I am sure that the hon. Member for Norwich, North would like to take up that issue later, because it was a fundamental proposal in the Committee's report.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon is in Committee at the moment and there was a vote at 4 o'clock, which is why he is delayed. I know that he has given his apologies to Members—in case there was some concern over his health.
	The Government disagreed with the Committee's argument that there was a mismatch between the protection afforded by legislation to an embryo created in vitro before implantation and one at a later stage of development. The Committee was pointing out that allowing the greater use of pre-implantation genetic diagnosis, or PGD, may mean that the demand for abortions falls—particularly in the case of abortion on the grounds of foetal sex, which is technically illegal but difficult to police. Perhaps the greatest area of disagreement was over the future role of Parliament in regulation. I will return to that a little later.

Phil Willis: Few hon. Members would disagree with the hon. Lady. I would go further and say that what we have seen in parts of the United States, where deformities, in particular deafness, have been screened in because the parents want their child to mirror their own condition, is absolutely horrendous.
	Science is getting to the point where we have an amazing number of techniques and can do amazing things, but at that point we have to stop and to ask, "Is this what we want?" The Committee was right to ask some of the questions and it was right to say to the Government that we simply cannot let such matters drift on. The Government are there to make some of those decisions. The Committee's recommendation about a bioethics committee is relevant. The hon. Lady is correct: not everyone is comfortable with the new possibilities or with the fact that it is the HFEA, which has only limited input from professional ethicists, that is taking those decisions. That worries me. In my view that is the job of Parliament—but I know that many people would disagree.
	The new treatments bring their own ethical dilemmas. The value or rights of an embryo have to be weighed against the potential benefits of avoiding certain conditions; equally, the impact of such activity on existing people with such conditions must be taken into account. Although there are arguments over what diseases and conditions are serious enough to warrant screening, there is a more fundamental argument about who should make those decisions. The Committee argued that Parliament should set the ethical parameters for the use of PGD and other such procedures, and that regulators should then be responsible for ensuring the highest possible clinical standards.
	I fundamentally agree with that position. Parliament, rather than unelected regulators, should have responsibility for establishing the ethical framework for the use of PGD and other procedures and for endorsing guidelines as necessary. The Committee proposes a new parliamentary Standing Committee on bioethics that would make recommendations on the need for legislative changes and scrutinise any secondary legislation in the field. Such a system has been adopted throughout Europe and I commend the principle to the Minister for serious consideration.
	Of course, such an approach to bioethics would necessitate changes to the existing regulatory framework, which is a fourth area of contention between the Committee and the Government. The Committee recommended a three-pronged approach on a new regulatory framework to give greater clarity to existing legislation and thus allow medical professionals to get on with their jobs without the bureaucratic burden of frequent applications to the regulators.
	The Committee's call for a new human genetics, fertility and human tissue commission to replace the HFEA, the Human Tissue Authority and the Human Genetics Commission appears to have been rejected in favour of a model that combines the HFEA with the HTA. That body will retain the HFEA's licensing responsibility, although that is a matter about which the Committee was critical. I hope that the House will debate the two sides of that argument today.
	My final point is about abortion time limits. Paragraph 308 of the Committee's report recommended that a Joint Committee of both Houses should be established
	"to consider the scientific, medical and social changes in relation to abortion that have taken place since 1967, with a view to presenting options for new legislation."
	It is more than 15 years since the legislation was last reviewed by Parliament. We now know a lot more about the foetus and have gained more evidence about the factors underpinning the 24-week limit. There is growing pressure from those on both sides of the abortion debate to look again at developments since 1990 to determine whether a change to the existing legislation is warranted.
	Early-day motion 2379 was tabled by the hon. Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale (Geraldine Smith) in support of that, and it had been signed by59 Members at the last count. Its signatories have all viewpoints; indeed, I signed it myself. The head of the Catholic Church, Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O'Connor, has recently called for the time limit to be reviewed. All that shows that there is a feeling in the House and the country that we should at least review the scientific evidence and put it before the House, rather than simply pretending that things are as they were in 1990—or, indeed, 1967.

Phil Willis: With the greatest respect to the hon. Gentleman, I do not know the answer to that. Does the fact that we now have better imaging of the foetus at24 weeks represent a substantial change from the situation 10 or 20 years ago? Of course, people such as Lord Winston claim that the foetus is exactly the same at 24 weeks as it was 20, 30, or 40 years ago. However, medical technology, and our ability to maintain life at 24 weeks, have changed. The purpose of having an inquiry was to examine such matters and to try to ensure that we put on the table the question of where the science and technology were, and how we could tackle the key ethical questions so that Parliament could debate and discuss that and the Government could take action, if necessary. That is what Parliament should be doing.

Phil Willis: I fundamentally agree. At the end of the day, it is certainly not for white, middle-class males in Parliament to tell a lady in Birmingham, Brighton or Newcastle what she should do in such difficult circumstances. What the Committee and I are saying is that, given that this issue has not been examined for16 years, is it not time to examine the science and the technology and put it in an objective way before Parliament? This issue may well be dealt with through a private Member's Bill, but I point out, with the greatest respect, that it commands huge interest in the country, so it is up to the Government to take a lead on it, rather than an individual Member. Such a Member might introduce an ill-considered Bill that is purely emotive and does not deal with facts.

Geraldine Smith: I think that the Government should be leading this debate, because there is concern across the country. It is not just about allowing parliamentary time if a private Member's Bill comes up—they should be making time properly to discuss the issue. Before doing so, they should of course have all the available scientific and medical evidence on the changes that have taken place in society since the Abortion Act 1967 and the most recent amendment to the legislation in 1990.
	The current law on abortions was established in the Abortion Act, with a time limit for abortion set at the 28th week of pregnancy. That was reduced to the24th week by amendment to section 37 of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act. The central criterion underpinning the time span was that the foetus would not be able to survive outside the mother's womb at that stage of its development. Following advances in technology and medical care, there is now strong evidence that foetuses are far more developed at a much earlier stage than was previously thought, so that they are able to survive outside their mother's womb as early as 18 weeks. That undermines the key principle in relation to the formulation of the time limits. When life can be carried on independently of the mother, surely the foetus, or baby, has human rights of its own.
	The Government state in their response, however, that they have
	"no plans to change the law on abortion."
	Does that mean they have already considered the available evidence and concluded that they are perfectly happy with the current legislation and see no need for change? If so, they should be honest and say so, giving their reasons for reaching such a conclusion. Or do they believe that all the issues surrounding this matter need to be more fully examined? If so, why have not they supported the Committee's recommendation on the establishment of a Joint Committee? Or do they believe, as they seem to suggest at the end of paragraph 105 of their response, that this is nothing to do with them and that it is up to Back Benchers to sort it out because that is what happened in the past? If so, I would accuse them of abrogating their responsibilities on this issue. While they are correct in their judgment that it is a matter of personal belief and conscience, and must therefore be decided by a free vote in both Houses, that does not absolve them of their responsibilities and prevent them from leading the debate.
	I am sure that Ministers and Back Benchers are well aware that this issue will not go away and that pressure for a review of the law on abortion will continue to grow. I would welcome the Minister's response to the points that I have outlined.

Ann Winterton: I am grateful to be called in the debate, which takes me back to 1990 and all the issues that were debated then. I went underground for the next 10 years, having had rather too much of them because they were exceptionally difficult and took a lot out of one as well as much time. However, they are exceptionally important and evergreen.
	I want to focus on two issues in relation to the Science and Technology Committee's consultation and report. I begin by commending the fact that the consultation's terms of reference were comprehensive and rigorous. The Committee consulted extensively—online, through oral submissions and by encouraging written submissions. It was a truly committed initiative, which extended far beyond the usual time schedules involved in such consultation exercises. A little bird told me that the Committee even went to Rome to consult the Vatican. I thought that that was a good move, and I do not speak as a Roman Catholic. It must have been the first time in history that a Select Committee took evidence from the Vatican.
	The report is, sadly, not to be universally celebrated and it is worth remembering from the start the amount of internal and public disquiet that surrounded its publication. The Committee was split down the middle, as the hon. Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale (Geraldine Smith) said. I commend her bravery in raising an issue that perhaps other hon. Members would have preferred her not to raise. It was right and proper that she did so. Only the vote of the distinguished Chairman, the hon. Member for Norwich, North (Dr. Gibson)—

Brian Iddon: It is important that we are having this debate on an Estimates day. The subject is complex. The report from the Science and Technology Committee contains many chapters and much material that needs to be debated, and in the short time available today we shall not be able to do it justice. Let me say to the Minister that I hope this will be the first of many debates on the subject before we change the legislation, as we must.
	When we embarked on the debate, I hoped that it would not be hijacked by the abortion issue. That is not because I do not consider the issue important. The Committee deliberately avoided debating it, however, because it had been debated so often in Government time on the Floor of the House and elsewhere in the Palace of Westminster. I rather hoped that today we would concentrate on other issues, which are not aired as frequently as they should be.
	I regard my membership of the Select Committee as one of the most important duties that I perform in this place on behalf of my constituents. The Committee's members believe that they have influenced Government thinking in a number of policy areas, and have also influenced organisations outside the House. A number of debates are taking place at present, of which this is only one.
	During my time in the Committee disagreement has been rare, but the fifth report of the 2004-05 Session was an exception. It resulted in the eighth special report of that Session, which makes it clear that five of the 11 Committee members disagreed with the publication of the fifth report. That probably reflects the divided views of Members across the House, which is why we are given free votes on most of these difficult issues.
	After a lengthy inquiry and prolonged discussions, the Committee met again on 14 March last year, faced with 130 further amendments to an already amended report. It was clear to me then that the report would not see the light of day, especially as we knew that Parliament was shortly to be dissolved. A great deal of effort had gone into compiling the report. It had also cost a lot of money, particularly because of visits to Stockholm and Rome—including a visit to the health ministry at the Vatican—and to clinics in various parts of this country. We collected a large amount of evidence, and the inquiry lasted for an entire year. If the report had dropped out of sight, it would have been costly for Parliament, and it would have been a shame in the context of today's debate. Therefore, I did an unusual thing in a Select Committee: I moved a guillotine. That caused quite a rumpus. On that day, the meeting began at 3.30 in the afternoon and the guillotine was for 8.30 in the evening. Even though it upset some of my colleagues on the Committee, I do not regret taking that action, because if we had not taken it, we would not be having the debate on this important report this afternoon.
	Our report states:
	"the evidence suggests that the scale of intrusion into the private choices of individuals seeking to have a family can no longer be justified. We do, however, accept that the research uses of the embryo of the human species remain a legitimate interest of the State."
	Other members of the Committee felt that that was too liberal a statement and they moved an amendment against the libertarian approach of certain members of the Committee, but the majority prevailed and the report was published.
	I accept that these issues are difficult to grasp and even more difficult to legislate for, but it is now generally accepted that the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990 is in need of review and I believe that our report forms an excellent platform for that review to take place. As in many other areas, advances in technology in this field are racing ahead of our ability to consider reform of existing legislation.
	As I have said, the Committee deliberately excluded abortion from its inquiry and it excluded surrogacy, too. I want to touch on one or two aspects in the report. On the status of the embryo, we agreed with the Warnock view that embryos should have special status. As the present Chairman of the Committee has pointed out, we took the "gradualist approach" that a human being is not created at the point of natural fertilisation but emerges gradually towards birth. However, we respect the 14-day rule that allows research to be carried out on an embryo during the period before the primitive streak emerges, which is the first sign that the nervous system, the spinal cord and the brain are beginning to develop. It is my personal view that no change to the law should be made in that respect, although there are arguments being advanced both to reduce that 14-day limit and to increase it to20 days, or even beyond that. Baroness Warnock has admitted that that time scale of 14 days is "arbitrary" and it is based on the reasoning that I have already given.
	The 1990 Act defines an embryo in section 1(1) as:
	"a live human embryo where fertilisation is complete"
	which includes
	"an egg in the process of fertilisation".
	The term "gamete" covers live human eggs or sperm, but not eggs in the process of fertilisation.
	Today, that definition is inadequate because artificially created gametes can be produced and embryos can be created through the process of cell nuclear replacement, or cloning, the process used to give birth to Dolly the sheep at the Roslin institute nearly 10 years ago. Our Committee believes that attempts to define an embryo in any new Act would be counter-productive because it would lead to legal challenges, as the definition of the embryo in the present Act has led to legal challenges.
	On sex selection, I agree with the majority of our report's recommendations, but not all. I spoke against sex selection for nonmedical reasons—Members have used the phrase "for social reasons"—either by sperm sorting or by pre-implantation genetic diagnosis. However, for the avoidance of sex-related disorders, I do support sex selection.
	Some communities value boys more than girls; India and China are examples. I believe sex selection to be discriminatory and that it should not be sanctioned in this country. The policy of the two countries that I mentioned has serious demographic consequences. However, I recognise that there are arguments for family balancing, especially when a mother has given birth to a significant number of children of the same sex. Alan and Louise Masterton, who have four sons, lost their three-year-old daughter Nicole in 1999 in a domestic accident and campaigned for the right to rebuild their family with a daughter. If families cannot achieve what they want in this country, they will probably go abroad to achieve their ends. That applies to other areas of this debate as well as sex selection, but I have no ready answers to "reproductive tourism". We have to face the fact that if people cannot get what they want in this country and it is legally available in other countries, they will go there to have that treatment, possibly under less safe conditions than would apply in this country.

Robert Key: I shall endeavour to speak as briefly as I can, as I am the only Member on the Opposition Benches, apart from the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris), who served on the Committee. I have a few things to say, but what I say will be much shorter because I can simply say that I agree with all 104 recommendations produced by the Committee.
	I support the motion, which aims to supply funds and grant-in-aid for the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority. I congratulate Dame Suzi Leather on the work that she and her colleagues do on a remarkable committee. I think that there will probably be a need for more resources in future, not fewer.
	I speak also as one of only two Members in the Chamber today who served on the Committee that considered what became the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990. I think it is true to say that my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Ann Winterton) and I agree on almost everything, and have done for almost 23 years, except on this issue. We have disagreed with each other for 23 years about some of the important issues that are now before us. I strongly respect her views although I disagree with them.
	We are dealing with a report that was produced in the previous Parliament. It was undoubtedly the most interesting and significant Select Committee that I served on for 23 years, despite my having served on five Select Committees. I thank the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis), who is the current Chairman of the Committee, for his thoughtful contribution to the debate. I thank particularly the hon. Member for Norwich, North (Dr. Gibson), who throughout all the trials and tribulations of a remarkable Committee managed to lead us to a conclusion and to get a report published when it was the wish of some that that should not happen. It would have done a great disservice to the House if a report had not been published.
	We are dealing with some of the last great taboos. That is why it is important to tackle them head on. To know what we should do about human reproductive technology, we should start by understanding and appreciating the widely differing views that people hold about the nature of the human embryo.
	A young man living in a Jewish community about 2,000 years ago would probably have acceptedthe traditional Jewish position on the status of the embryo—it is not a person but must be treated with the respect due to a form of human life. That is surely something with which most of us could agree.
	In the fourth century, teaching in Roman north Africa, St. Augustine of Hippo believed that the human embryo did not have a soul because it was not sentient. Writing in 13th century Naples, St. Thomas Aquinas rekindled Aristotlean philosophy and decided that humanity began with ensoulment at 40 days for a male foetus and 90 days for a female foetus. Was not that progress?
	The Bishop of Rochester advised our Committee last year that the gradual emergence of a person was the usual approach in the Christian tradition until 1869, when Pope Pius XI abolished the distinction between early and late abortions. By 1984 the Warnock committee had concluded, rather in the Christian tradition, that a human embryo develops over time. It said that a human embryo cannot be thought of as a person or even as a potential person; it is simply a collection of cells which, unless it implants in a human uterine environment, has no potential for development.
	I do not think that a human being is created at the moment of conception. That is the moment that takes the egg and the sperm a step nearer to implantation, with humanity commencing at 14 days with the appearance of the primitive streak, the precursor to the spinal chord, signifying cell differentiation and the beginning of sentience. I believe that life is a continuum with a genetic line moving ever onwards, unless it dies out through lack of procreation. That, surely, is why we humans are so interested in our ancestors and, indeed, the fortunes of our children.
	There is a huge problem now. Only 30 per cent. of fertilised eggs of embryos implant. What about the rest: the spare embryos? The Church of England Mission and Public Affairs Council said in its report on embryo research:
	"The superabundance of embryos, seventy per cent of which do not implant in the womb, is echoed throughout nature... Seed or eggs which do not reproduce are frequently sources of food for other creatures."
	The former Bishops of Oxford and Salisbury, in the other place, have in the past both talked of the problems that arise if all human embryos are regarded as having full human status from the moment of conception. If 70 per cent. of embryos are destroyed, do we believe that they are ensouled human beings and does that mean that heaven is largely populated by embryos? I do not know. I look forward to someone helping with that problem.
	Research on human embryos can be undertaken without compromising their special status, but the research must have proper legal and ethical oversight. I also believe that it is right to create embryos for research purposes, always insisting on the 14-day rule. The hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough said that Parliament sometimes had to tell scientists to stop that process. We cannot stop science or prevent progress. Science is moving onwards at a fast pace all the time. The report suggests that both Houses of Parliament should have a role in listening to all the arguments, in representing the different views in the legislative process and in deciding what should be legal for the time being—because what is legal now was not legal 20 years ago.

Robert Key: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his clarification. The problem is that reproductive technology is moving way ahead of us as legislators. That was always going to happen. I remember saying in the Chamber during the Third Reading debate on the 1990 Act, "They will be back." I am quite surprised that it has taken the scientific community and the Government so long to come back to the House. I support the Select Committee's call for parliamentary oversight and a new parliamentary Standing Committee on bioethics. Only then will all sides have the chance to be heard and will there be an opportunity for the evidence to be weighed.
	I wonder how many Members and how many of our constituents are familiar with the complexities of reproductive cloning, hybrids and chimeras, pre-implantation genetic diagnosis, embryo splitting, parthenogenesis, cell nuclear transplants, sperm sorting and haploidisation. Those things are happening around us, for our constituents, in our constituencies, every day of the year. They are real. They are happening today. We cannot ignore them. We cannot say that we wish that they did not happen, because they are happening.
	For that reason, I was surprised by the announcement from the Vatican last week, as reported in  The Daily Telegraph. The headline was:
	"Vatican vows to expel stem cell scientists from Church".
	When the Committee visited the Vatican, it was a huge privilege to be invited to visit the archbishops and bishops and their medical advisers and experts, who did us great courtesy and showed us great respect, as we did them. They will be reading this debate—if not watching it in the Vatican. I would like, therefore, to put on record my thanks to them for putting up with us when we challenged them with some very difficult ideas—perhaps of a nature with which they were not familiar. Perhaps they were not used to being confronted by parliamentarians, because the politics of Italy are different and the role of the Church in Italy is different.
	I am sorry that the Vatican made that announcement last week and that Cardinal Alfonso Lopez Trujillo said, in an interview with  Famiglia Christiana, an official Vatican magazine:
	"Excommunication will be applied to the women, doctors and researchers who eliminate embryos"
	and to the
	"politicians that approve the law."
	I therefore commend the courage of the Italian senator, Paola Binetti, a member of Opus Dei and a prominent campaigner for Catholic rights, who said:
	"I am upset and stunned,"
	and continued:
	"It is a mistake to give out the idea that God is angry with Man because he is not in agreement with him."
	I agree with that. The Vatican's reaction looks a bit like panic.
	I want to make a few comments about the question of so-called eugenics and designer babies. The whole argument is tainted by our memory of the appalling atrocity of Nazism and all that happened then. The word "eugenics" is Greek and simply means well bred and well-being—a good baby. Of course, that is not how it is usually applied. Surely there is a great difference between seeking to create a child with particular characteristics such as blue eyes—or a child who is sporty or musical—to make a master race, and trying to filter out the damaging parts of this fragile human life where that is humanly possible. I have wrestled with that problem for years.
	I recall that when the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill was going through the House in 1989 and 1990, I asked my bishop, John Baker, whether he would help. On 20 February 1990, he wrote this to me:
	"Where nature itself spontaneously aborts a good many embryos in these very early stages of life, it is hard to feel that to do so deliberately for good reason is contrary to God's own mind, so far as that is revealed in his created order. Moreover, if we are to be realistic, we human beings are not spiritually, psychologically and socially all so marvellous that we can promise the spina bifida or cystic fibrosis sufferer a quality and fulfilment of life that will make the burden of their sufferings worthwhile. On the whole if you can choose to launch either a life without these such handicaps or one with them, it seems morally better to choose the former. Many parents must pray for a disease-free child; when we are given the power to bring that about ourselves, what does it say about our prayer if we refuse to use that power?"
	That puts that argument rather powerfully, and it is as true now as it was.
	It is very important, therefore, to be careful when we are talking about designer babies to be clear that we are not talking about designing something to our own wish or to our own vision of a perfect child, but using science, which in my view is God-given, to enable us to use our brains to stop suffering as far as we may. I also feel—the hon. Member for Bolton, South-East(Dr. Iddon) said this eloquently, and I agree with everything that he said—that within the law, families should make decisions on their reproduction and not the state. The state does have a role, but we need to rebalance the arguments.
	Finally, I want to say a quick word about abortion, because we cannot ignore it; it is part of the issue, and our report said what we thought we should be doing about it. If we want less abortion, we must look very carefully at the figures. Of the 185,000 abortions a year, just 124 occur after 24 weeks. If we are seeking to reduce the quantity of abortions in this country, does it make sense to vilify the tiny number of extremely vulnerable women in the most difficult and terrible circumstances who are in that category, and to say that they are somehow doing something unspeakable? I think not.
	Let us look at the other end of the scale, too. Frequently we are told how awful it is that there are so many teenage pregnancies. I asked the Office for National Statistics for the figures, and in my constituency in the past 10 years the number of abortions among girls under 16 was 14. The ONS refused to set the figures out by year because it said that that would break confidentiality. We are talking very small numbers. The highest proportion of abortions in this country are performed on single women and those who have had abortions before. Perhaps that is where we should be considering education; something is wrong there. The hon. Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale (Geraldine Smith), who, sadly, is no longer present, used the word "Frankensteins", but the proportion of abortions on the grounds of chromosomal abnormality is one third of 1 per cent.—that is all. If we want fewer abortions in our country—and, God knows, I am sure we all do—we will need more human reproductive technology and much more education.

Brooks Newmark: As a society, we are increasingly uncomfortable with the existence of received wisdom and moral certainties. It is probably also true to say that we are becoming uncomfortable even with the principles of secular morality—be it utilitarian or libertarian. Such secular morality is increasingly branded as an extension of "public interest", so that it need not appear to be morality at all. The Warnock report proposed that the putative regulatory body for biotechnology should not be
	"exclusively, or even primarily, a medical or scientific body. It is concerned essentially with broader matters and the protection of the public interest."
	It is perhaps fitting that a body that exists to deal with, among other things, the ethical dilemmas posed by genetic hybrids and chimeras, should be similarly heterogeneous. But it is true that scientific evidence and more traditional moral yardsticks must continue to complement one another. The ascendancy of science untrammelled by other concerns leads us into dark places.
	The Committee's investigation of eugenics and pre-implantation genetic diagnosis, for example, touched on the potential disaster of social objectives triumphing over ethical objections. Perhaps that is the danger implicit in conflating ethical, clinical and political judgments, which is why I believe that the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority might no longer be fit for purpose. There must now be a solid case for reconsidering its remit—and, consequently, its composition—from the ground up.
	The intention to merge the HFEA and the Human Tissue Authority into a new regulatory authority provides an important opportunity to address the fundamental concerns about the biotechnology regulatory regime that the Committee expressed. The fact that the new authority will no longer be called the regulatory authority for fertility and tissue does not mean that it cannot become a "RAFT" in troubled ethical waters. The HFEA's most important failings are not those related to the practical problems that, to some extent, afflict all Government organisations. It is no surprise that the Committee's recommendation 66 highlights critical failings in the agency's data management policies. Nor is it a surprise, for example, that the Government's response lays the blame on the goose that has so often failed to lay a golden egg: IT infrastructure.
	I was, however, more struck by the Committee's findings on the HFEA's inadequate expertise. I want to focus my remarks on recommendation 47, and particularly the following statement:
	"We believe that ultimate authority on issues of public concern should lie outside of the scientific and medical communities."
	That is a sound principle, although many would argue that the scientific and medical communities do not harbour nefarious intentions of the kind that would make them incapable of self-regulation by their various professional bodies. But even if the status quo of lay dominance over day-to-day decisions is to be preserved, it is indefensible for the HFEA to lack a sound basis of scientific expertise; that must be corrected in any new body.
	My concern is that insufficient parliamentary time is given to these complex ethical decisions, which are based on a rapidly evolving scientific evidence base. The introduction to the Committee's report notes the statement, made during an earlier inquiry, that, after12 years of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990, it was necessary to
	"reconnect the Act with modern science."
	It also reiterated earlier criticism of the complacency of certain members of the HFEA, and the Department of Health's "limp response" regarding a policy of constant review. If the HFEA is not keeping abreast of a rapidly advancing field because it has insufficient expertise or organisational capacity, it is clearly necessary to do one of two things.
	The first option is to return regulation to the relevant professional bodies. The Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists stated in evidence that
	"the body regulating this area should have sufficient expertise in its make up to tackle some of the difficult clinical, scientific and ethical issues presented to it".
	Does that description not include the professional bodies themselves? We should at least be asking whether regulation can safely be left in the hands of the royal colleges or the British Medical Association, safe in the knowledge that they are deemed capable of engaging with other complex areas of medical ethics. After all, the Committee made a number of recommendations concerning professional bodies' increased involvement in the management of clinical and laboratory standards. It is only a small step from that position to professional bodies' wholesale involvement in the development and review of an appropriate regulatory regime. It is only the Warnock principle of lay primacy over these ethical questions that holds us back.
	Alternatively, we must establish a regime of regular statutory review by Parliament. It is time to turn our backs on a generation of ad hoc, laissez-faire intervention by Parliament, which relies on the initiative of Back Benchers to ensure that the law is kept in touch with science. That is particularly apposite in the case of the law relating to abortion. I am not an expert on accepted parliamentary practice concerning Back-Bench initiation of legislation, but it seems in this instance to be a convenient caveat to justify the Government's inertia.
	I do not want to go too far off piste and into the dangerous territory of advocating a review of the time limit applicable to abortion, about which we have heard much already. The decision whether to allow abortion up to 24 weeks, 20 weeks or even 18 weeks should be based on the available scientific evidence and should, if anything, err on the side of caution when it comes to the protection of a potentially viable foetus—in other words, a potential life. But, above all, I do not believe that the Government should absolve themselves, or Parliament, from the responsibility of regularly engaging in the ethical debate on the regulation of human reproductive technology. I believe that Parliament, not the HFEA, is the only crucible in which these questions can be discussed fully, because we are uniquely placed to respond to the scientific evidence, as well as to ethical problems and public opinion. The HFEA is quite wrong to view its role as insulating Parliament from difficult ethical choices.
	I am heartened by the strength of support of witnesses called by the Committee for Parliament's increased participation in difficult ethical situations. The Committee's recommendations about parliamentary involvement are very welcome, particularly on the need for Parliament to be able to revisit contentious issues. But more than that, I am pleased that the Committee recognises the benefit of the increased public confidence that stems from greater parliamentary involvement in difficult ethical questions. It is, after all, easy to lobby a Member of Parliament on a free vote—and much less plausible that anyone should lobby the HFEA.
	The HFEA is an unhappy compromise between scientific, evidence-based decision making and the Warnock principle governing the primacy of lay ethical opinion. If that primacy is still required, its proper forum is Parliament—a point that the hon. Member for Bolton, South-East (Dr. Iddon) alluded to earlier. The Government must now take steps to see that Parliament is entrusted with the regular review of the legislation governing biotechnology. Only Parliament has the resources to co-ordinate and balance the available scientific evidence, the ethical concerns, and the vagaries and inconsistencies of public opinion that are vital to this area of law. More importantly, only Parliament has the moral authority to ensure that the law keeps pace with scientific advances, without exceeding ethical boundaries or failing to meet public expectation.

Emily Thornberry: Yes. Women who have abortions late are very young, or women going through the menopause, women who do not speak English, women who come across the one fifth of GPs who say they are broadly anti-abortion, women who have had difficulty accessing services and women who are scared, ill educated or marginalised. It is those people who are confronted with such a decision and who, with the assistance and support of medical services, make that extremely difficult decision. It is for them and not for the hon. Gentleman to make that decision.
	There have not been any dramatic scientific breakthroughs in recent years. The survival rates are still very low for babies born before 24 weeks, and those that do survive frequently survive with severe disabilities. Last June, doctors at the annual conference of the British Medical Association overwhelmingly rejected a motion calling for the upper limit to be cut from 24 to 20 weeks—77 per cent. of doctors voted against it.
	The spark that has reignited the debate on time limits is not medical advances, but the beautiful and highly emotive 4D images of foetuses offered by Professor Campbell in his private London clinic. Foetuses can be seen opening their eyes, kicking their legs and sucking their thumbs, but as Allan Templeton, the secretary of the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists has said, the images add little to the science. If we want a debate about the science, let us talk about the science. He says:
	"Observing these developments and physiological movements is not changing anything about the time of viability. These images however have given rise again to the question as to whether or not there should be a reduction in the time limit of24 weeks. It is distressing that so much of the comment has been so ill-informed."

Phil Willis: My response was that I do not know of any such changes. That is different. The purpose of an inquiry would be to put the issue to bed. If the hon. Lady is right and there is no new scientific evidence, that would come out in such an inquiry and would be laid before the House. If she is wrong and there is new evidence, that would come out in the inquiry and be laid before the House. For the life of me I cannot understand why the hon. Lady should even question the principle of re-examining the evidence after16 years.

Evan Harris: It is a pleasure to speak in this debate. I tried to catch your eye for several reasons, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I have a long-standing interest in this issue. I was mentioned several times earlier in the debate. I was a member of the Science and Technology Committee that worked on the report—work being the operative word—and I am a current member of the Committee. I am a member of the British Medical Association's ethics committee, having been re-elected by doctors last week. In addition to all that, I am the Front-Bench spokesman.
	The introductory speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis) was all-encompassing of the main points of the report and a very fair version of it. He inherited the report and cannot claim that it is his baby, to coin a phrase, but he described it well.
	The hon. Member for Norwich, North (Dr. Gibson), who chaired the Committee, did a fantastic job in difficult circumstances. I hugely admire his commitment to science and to his work in the Committee. I extend those remarks to the hon. Member for Salisbury (Robert Key), for whom I have huge admiration that increased, were that possible, as I listened to his speech.
	Producing the report was difficult, because five people supported many of the recommendations and five people opposed them. The difficulty faced by those of us in the notional majority was that when it came to debating and voting on the recommendations, the minority had found it difficult to turn up because of the pressures that have been described. It is hard to develop coherence when people vote four against one in some sittings and five against five in others.
	I do not accept that the report is libertarian. It is liberalising. However, it does not argue for a change in the 14-day limit, which is the fundamental limit in the 1990 settlement and in Warnock; it does not argue against the Warnock consensus on the gradual acquisition of rights in consideration of the interests of the embryo and the foetus; and it does not argue, as it could have done, for liberalisation of abortion law. It was not extremist or libertarian, but it is fair to say that it was brave.
	The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority felt that it was attacked in the report, but it was not, as the hon. Member for Braintree (Mr. Newmark) explained. I must be careful about the HFEA, because two of its last three chairs are constituents of mine. The estimable Ruth Deech and the estimable Bishop of Oxford, recently retired, are extremely senior people in their field and brook no unjustified criticism. However, the report should not be seen as a criticism of the HFEA, which does a difficult job using a law that is 16 years old and creaking at the seams and should not be dragged through the courts.
	I greatly enjoyed the speech by the hon. Member for Congleton (Ann Winterton). Although I disagree with her, she speaks for many people. She made several points that are worth responding to, including some in which she mentioned me. She talked about society's distaste for some of the report's recommendations, although she did not provide data to back that up, except in the case of sex selection, which I accept that a majority of people currently oppose. However, it is not good enough for us to base our law and lawmaking on the yuck factor, particularly when it involves fundamental rights such as the reproductive rights of other adult human beings. That is why the Government were right to legislate to permit gay adoption although a majority of people found that distasteful and something that they did not understand. I am fairly sure that the hon. Lady voted against permitting adoption of children by gay couples. The Conservative approach is usually to argue for less state intervention in private lives unless there is good evidence of harm that requires it. That is a reasonable position. However, it was suggested in several well reasoned contributions that the instinct on some of these issues is to regulate and to legislate to restrict freedom, in which case it is necessary to provide the relevant evidence.
	Much has been said about abortion and whether we should debate it. Recommendation 77 argues for a future debate after a review of the law. The hon. Members for Brighton, Kemptown (Dr. Turner) and for Bolton, South-East (Dr. Iddon), who are assiduous members of the Committee, spoke well and clearly on the subject. I do not agree with the hon. Member for Bolton, South-East that there have been lots of debates on abortion, in Government time or otherwise. There have not. We had the Abortion Act 1967 and the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990, and last July I called an Adjournment debate on abortion time limits. Other than that, I can find no record of parliamentary time devoted specifically to abortion, other than on ten-minute Bills. We need to have such a debate in order to retain public confidence.
	The hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry) gave a full-blooded pro-choice speech that I greatly enjoyed. It is important that that view, which reflects the majority view in the country, is heard. We do not often hear it because the other side is well organised and feels equally strongly about such matters. However, the hon. Lady must acknowledge that her argument—and the reasons that she gave and that the Stopes report set out—that the individual decisions are for women to make applies at 25 weeks as well as 24, and that Parliament must set a limit. The question is how Parliament determines that limit.
	In 1990, the limit was based on viability at 24 weeks. If that period has reduced, the hon. Lady may continue to vote for 24 weeks as a practical limit, and I might support her, having listened to the arguments for why any such reduction should cut across the rights of women in difficult positions. However, as my hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough said, Parliament must debate that and make its decision: for a practical limit of 24 weeks, a viability limit of 24 weeks or a lower limit, if it believes, on the basis of scientific evidence, that the limit on which viability was previously based has reduced.
	I share the hon. Lady's scepticism about whether medical advances have reduced the time on which viability is based—if we believe that to mean a reasonable chance of surviving a reasonable length of time without unreasonable disability—from 24 weeks. However, like my hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough, I do not know the answer and Parliament should have an opportunity of examining the science before deciding.
	Our recommendation in the report went beyond viability and considered other issues, including medical and social advances that suggest that, for example, access to early medical abortion, which is an easier way to have abortions—if we are to accept abortions, we should not force women to go through more difficulty than necessary—reduces later abortions. There is a good argument for making access to early medical abortion easier.
	The hon. Member for Bolton, South-East set out why we believed that sex selection for social reasons might be considered, and that good arguments against it would have to be made. He also clearly set out our reasons for supporting research.
	It has been said that I have strong views on the suggested welfare of the child provision. That also applies to the rest of the Committee. I believe that a provision for considering the welfare of a potential child when dealing with the creation of families by the small group of people who are infertile is discriminatory. It is the wrong way to protect the welfare of the child, which we must do. Social services and child protection bodies are best placed, when a child is born, to make a risk assessment, especially if they have had a warning when someone began the treatment process that there was some anxiety. Experts should make such an assessment, not gynaecologists or general practitioners who hardly know their patients and are not in a good position to make such decisions. We heard evidence in Committee that such intervention was pointless because it was ineffective and ignored, and that the birth of only 10 children a year was avoided through the process. They could be looked after through the other means that I described. Do we want state regulation of fertility? I do not believe that we do, certainly not without good evidence that it would be better to do that. Are we genuinely arguing that it is better not to be born than to take such steps?
	On the need for a father, I believe that it is discriminatory and restrictive to subject some women to such a test. The state must have good reason for intervening in such matters and there is no good evidence to show that the children of lesbian parents or single women who specifically seek reproductive treatment are any the worse off for that background. Evidence exists to show that children born to poor families do worse than those born to rich families. Would hon. Members call for clinics to check on the need for cash in the family before offering fertility treatment? No, of course we would not do that. That would also be discriminatory, even though there is more evidence of poor welfare in those circumstances.
	Providing for the need for a father creates a market for internet services such as "Man Not Included". If we start regulating those services, women will turn to strangers to be impregnated, and there is no protection in such cases. I do not believe that it is a matter of common sense because one person's common sense is another's prejudice.

Caroline Flint: We have had a good debate. We have heard a variety of speeches from Back Benchers—12, I believe—in three hours or so, reflecting the complexity and diversity of opinions on what we have been able to discuss today, let alone other aspects of the report that there has not been time to mention.
	I welcome the report, and thank my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North (Dr. Gibson), who chaired the Committee that produced it. He passed the gauntlet—if that is the right word—to the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis). As he said, I am due to appear before the Committee next week, and I am sure that it will explore many of the issues raised today in much more depth.
	We have benefited from a number of authoritative reports produced by a variety of Select Committees of both Houses in recent years, but I think it fair to say that few have been as extensive as the one that we are debating today, or have produced such wide-ranging recommendations. The report followed a year-long inquiry involving written evidence gathering, examination of witnesses and, as we have heard today, fact-finding missions abroad. The result of that process has been very thought-provoking. It has led to analysis and to a set of recommendations which—although we may not all agree with them—prompt questions that need to be put, given the pace of change in both science and technology and social issues over the past decade or so in this area of public policy.
	Those who read the report, regardless of whether they agree with its proposals, will be compelled to examine their own reasoning and rationale in regard to a host of fundamental legal, ethical and social questions and dilemmas, many of which go to the heart of no lesser questions than what it means to be human and what are the proper limits of toleration in a modern pluralistic society. It is hardly surprising that the report did not have an easy gestation, or that the Committee could not reach unanimity on underlying principles. I should refer at this point to the special report that records the dissent of five Committee members. That too has been reflected in the speeches we have heard, particularly that of the hon. Member for Congleton (Ann Winterton).
	I do not think, however, that a lack of unanimity is necessarily to be regretted. It illustrates the complexity and depth of feeling that surrounds these issues, and opens them up to wider debate. Certainly our consultation, whose findings we published earlier in the year, revealed a wide range of views. It would be unfair to suggest, as some Members may have been inclined to suggest today, that there is only one view in the scientific community, or that it does not take the issues seriously. The feedback that I have received suggests that, far from having a "go fast" attitude, many in that community want the issues to be aired fully. They want a full discussion, because they want to feel that there is confidence in their professionalism and their approach to the important matters that have been raised today.
	I do not believe that any of the issues we have discussed are easy or admit of a simple solution, or at any rate a solution that can be reached by a simple or easy route. In January 2004 we announced our intention of reviewing the 1990 Act—a process that would include a public consultation exercise in 2005. The Select Committee's report provided an excellent starting point. We took up many of the issues raised and suggestions made by the Committee, and signalled our willingness to consider potential changes. I hope that our response also identified points on which we agreed with the Committee, and showed that when we did not agree we took on board some of the points that have been made again today. I am thinking of, for instance, the regulatory and policy-making role of the HFEA and the question of where Government oversight should lie.
	It is right for us to take time to think through the issues and develop our response properly. As I have said, we made clear our agreement with some of the report's recommendations, and made plain our intention to gather views on others from a wider audience. In common with the Committee, we concluded that the basic foundations of the 1990 Act, as rooted in the earlier report from the Warnock committee of inquiry, remained sound.
	I think we should all be very proud of the legislation. Yes, science has moved on, but I think we should be proud of the basic foundation that has served the country so well, not just nationally but internationally. My hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Dr. Turner) made a good point: that in not being prepared to explore some of the issues that we have explored, those in other countries have allowed the creation of an atmosphere in which it has been possible to develop some of the worst examples of what we do not wish to see. That has often brought into question practices in our own country, but our debates on the issue, and our underpinning legislation, have stood us in good stead and protected us from some of the wider and scarier practices overseas.
	The foundations of the report include the idea of a special status applicable to the human embryo, the need for active monitoring and regulation, and a clearly defined time limit on the development of embryos in vitro for research. When we announced our review of the Act, we made clear that several aspects of the current law and scheme of regulation would not be reopened for debate. We felt that those aspects had been conclusively, and in some cases very recently, resolved by Parliament, or the Government had already made clear their established policy intentions. They include the removal of donor anonymity. The hon. Members for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley) and for Windsor (Adam Afriyie) have expressed concerns about its removal, but children's organisations and others have said that they consider it right. We have talked a great deal about family and identity today. The view has been expressed that children conceived by means of donors have a right to receive information about those who allowed them to be created in the first place.
	As I have said, on the whole the 1990 Act has stood the test of time, and is a tribute to the foresight of its creators. It resulted from an extensive process of deliberation and consultation over several years. It established the principle of independent oversight of an area of medical practice, and I believe it has proved to be remarkably robust in the face of legal challenges. I also believe that it has promoted public confidence in assisted reproduction treatment, and has played a large part in enabling the United Kingdom to move to the forefront of cutting-edge developments in scientific and medical research.
	There has been criticism of the HFEA, but I think that it continues to do a very good job in dealing with the novel and complex issues that inevitably come its way. I agree to an extent with the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire, who said that it was difficult for organisations to look purely at regulation without examining issues relating to policy development as they see it, in the context of their inspection and regulatory processes. I join the hon. Gentleman in thanking Dame Suzi Leather for her leadership and steering of the HFEA. I also thank all members of the board, who constitute a mix of professional and lay people.
	Law and regulation have not stood still since 1990. The House has passed both primary and secondary legislation, either in response to developments or to seize new opportunities. Nevertheless, the Committee and the Government have agreed that there is a growing need to revisit the law, particularly given the rise of new technologies. The Committee had previously expressed that view as a need to
	"reconnect the Act with modern science".
	There can be no doubt that developments are moving fast. They include technological breakthroughs in the screening of embryos for hereditary diseases, and we have seen the number of babies conceived through IVF worldwide pass the 3 million mark. That figure includes 100,000 children born in the UK. We need to establish a framework that is broadly acceptable to society, and fit for purpose in the 21st century.
	We should remember this, too. It comes from the Warnock report, and it has the same resonance today as when it was first written:
	"the law must not outrage the feelings of too many people, but it cannot reflect the feelings of them all."
	That is an important quote today, as it was then. The report continued:
	"It must therefore be drawn with a view to the common good".
	I believe that a consultative and deliberative approach is key. As we have said, we are keen to continue to explore how wide-ranging a debate we can have andto continue to provide opportunities for more involvement and more debate.
	There were 535 responses to our consultation; more than 100 organisations took part. We saw the wide diversity of views. None the less, the ultimate basis for regulation in this area is the public good, and commonly acceptable limits and boundaries. Therefore, the considered views of society as a whole, identified through exercises such as the consultation, the Select Committee report, this debate and debate in the months ahead, are crucial to making sure that we end up with a law as successful as the original law on which it will be founded.
	It is clear that responses generally favour measures such as a ban on non-medical sex selection, and retention of a "welfare of the child" consideration in some form. I will talk a bit more about that later. Respondees were generally less convinced of the need to make changes to the scope of permissible embryo research. It will be for Parliament to weigh those arguments, opinions and evidence in its consideration of any proposals to change the law that the Government may bring forward.
	There has been much discussion about the role of the HFEA. Some take the view that Parliament could take more of a role not only on that matter but on that movable feast, the way in which science and society develop. In our response to the Committee, we did not feel that a bioethics committee was necessarily the right way forward. We took that view on the basis that the present distributed model of advisory bodies with more specific briefs remained the best option, as it enables specific bioethical issues to be addressed by dedicated groups with the appropriate expertise and sufficient time to devote to the issue. However, we share the Committee's view that airing and debating bioethical issues in Parliament is important, and we are willing to give further consideration to the appropriate level of parliamentary control over delegated powers under legislation. We accept the benefit of wide consultation. As I have said, I am looking to explore how much further we can develop that debate in the months ahead.
	Establishing a regulatory authority for tissue and embryos is not just a costcutting exercise, as some people have suggested, or just a neat joining of two organisations. We believe that, through bringing the HFEA and the Human Tissue Authority together, we can have a single competent authority acting as a regulator under the blood, tissue and cells directives, which will reduce any risk of overlap and duplication. We also think that RATE will be better able to work with other regulators such as the Healthcare Commission to ensure common standards and practices. Having a single source of authoritative guidance on all issues related to the use of human tissues of all kinds will be helpful in one organisation. Again, that will help to ensure good practice and guidance established on common principles in those related areas.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, South-East (Dr. Iddon), the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough and other colleagues talked about the sex selection of offspring. That issue is a good example of why we have chosen to review existing law and regulation. It is established policy that the selection of embryos on the grounds of sex, other than for serious medical reasons, should not be allowed. That position is maintained by the HFEA, which has undertaken extensive public consultation and surveys. That was complemented by the response to our own consultation. However, there is not an explicit statutory ban in law, and nor does the HFEA's policy apply to treatments that fall outside its remit. The rise of new technologies, such as sperm sorting, could therefore allow sex selection to take place in settings outside the scope of regulation.
	We consulted on options, including a ban, ora partial ban in line with the Committee's recommendation to allow sex selection for non-medical reasons in order to "balance" a family. It is clear from responses to our consultation that people favoured an explicit ban with no exception for family-balancing, and a range of other surveys have shown widespread public antipathy to sex selection for social reasons.
	We must give serious consideration to how a statutory ban could work in practice. As I have said, services on the internet are one factor. My hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, South-East asked whether the Government would regulate internet sperm providers. We have said in our consultation document that we intend to make the operation of internet services involving supply subject to regulation. We have sought views on the detail of that, but clearly, we can apply it only in the UK. We cannot necessarily apply it to overseas practices.
	The welfare of the child and the need for a father are another social concern. Concerns about the general welfare of children underpin many aspects of the current legislation. For example, concern about the psychological well-being of the child is a key reason for the ban on human reproductive cloning. However, the extent to which the law should intervene in decisions to provide treatment in individual cases, or impose "social" criteria for assisted reproduction clinics is less clear-cut. Whatever view we take individually on the merits of different family forms, the issue is about whether it is the state's role to impose a view. I listened carefully to the comments of the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire
	In 1990, Parliament chose to require clinics to take account of the welfare of the child, including the need of the child for a father; any change to that position will again be a matter for Parliament. The Committee's report is very clear. What emerged from the consultation, interestingly—and, on this occasion, it contradicts the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, South-East—is that the medical profession, as represented by the royal colleges and the BMA, feels that there needs to be something that recognises the welfare of the child. The BMA wants a general welfare of the child provision to be retained, and the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists wants to subsume those considerations within good medical practice. Therefore, there is a view that the welfare of the child is still an important consideration to be taken into account.
	The question of the "need for a father" has again been aired. It is not a straightforward matter. The requirement to take account of the need for a father is not a prohibition as it currently stands. The HFEA is required to give clinics guidance on taking account of the welfare of the child. On that point it says:
	"Where the child will have no legal father, the treatment centre is expected to assess the prospective mother's ability to meet the child's/children's needs and the ability of other persons within the family or social circle willing to share responsibility for those needs."
	We are looking at the response to our consultation on the issue. I am sure that there will be further discussion. Again, we felt it important to put those questions in our consultation because we wanted to reflect the fact that perhaps over time opinions had changed, and the emphasis on the welfare of the child should be paramount in relation to decisions on the issue.
	PGD has concentrated colleagues' minds. The hon. Member for Salisbury (Robert Key) and my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown both spoke about the issue. The screening and selection of embryos, and the grounds on which that may be undertaken, feature heavily in the Committee's report and have done so in preceding reports. Indeed, I believe that that issue, more than any other, led to the instigation of the Committee's inquiry. Although the courts have upheld the HFEA's power to make licensing decisions in that area, the topic remains controversial.
	The analysis in the Committee's report is instructive. It raises several facets of the debate, including making sure that embryos are not created and destroyed frivolously, balanced against the avoidance of serious inherited disorders or the ability to treat a seriously ill sibling. It goes on to consider the appropriate setting for decision making and the respective roles of Parliament and the regulator. Responses to the consultation, where they agree that pre-implantation genetic diagnosis should be allowed, show that there is a view that there need to be some more explicit criteria in legislation to determine legitimate purposes for which embryo screening and selection may take place. Again, we need to think about how we deal with the pace of change in the science and the role of the authority in the future, as well as Parliament's input into the decisions.
	My hon. Friends the Members for Morecambe and Lunesdale (Geraldine Smith) and for Islington, South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry) and the hon. Members for Congleton, for Harrogate and Knaresborough, for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris) and for Salisbury (Robert Key) debated time limits. The subject was also touched on by other hon. Members in various ways.
	One of the differences between the last time Parliament discussed time limits and now is that then relevant professional bodies exerted considerable pressure in favour of a change. Some hon. Members may have participated in that debate, and I was certainly aware of it. It was clear that the professional bodies felt that the time limits needed to be changed. However, today, the Government have not been approached by any of the relevant professional bodies to state that they have changed their views since the limit was reduced from 28 to 24 weeks in 1990.
	At low gestation age, even if the foetus is born alive, there are high risks of death due to immaturity. Indeed, while the possibility of survival of extremely pre-term babies has improved, data suggest that, even with modern intensive care, chances of survival at 22 weeks' gestation are only approximately 1 per cent., whereas that increases to 26 per cent. at 24 weeks. However, it should be noted that 88 per cent. of abortions are carried out at less than 13 weeks' gestation, 60 per cent. of which are at less than 10 weeks. Less than 1 per cent. are performed at 22 weeks and over. Only 124 have taken place at 24 weeks and over.
	Parliament agreed in 1990 that the legal limit for most abortions should be reduced from 28 weeks to24 weeks. The debate that informed the decision considered a wide range of issues, including both ethical and practical issues. It is still a matter for Parliament to decide, but I wanted to be clear about the pressures that were coming at the time from professional organisations. That is not happening today. Any proposed changes would need to be carefully thought through, and we have not had the pressure from the organisations for change. The BMA and the royal colleges, which advised the need for a change in 1990, have not given any such advice today.

Caroline Flint: That is an issue for the House to decide. I was trying to point out the differences between the debate in 1990 and today. In 1990, the professional medical organisations urged the Government to make changes, based on the scientific evidence, but they are not doing so today.
	We are trying to ensure that women have access to abortion services as soon as possible. Primary care trusts have a performance indicator designed to encourage them to assist women to have access to early abortions. However, we know that some of those taking part in the debate disagree with any abortion. We have also carried out an audit of the gaps in access to contraception for women, and the point has been made this afternoon about access to better sex and relationships education and information for young people so that situations do not end in an unwanted pregnancy for which an abortion may the only solution for the individual concerned.

Caroline Flint: This afternoon has been an opportunity for all views to be aired on the issue, as was the hon. Gentleman's Adjournment debate last year. I am sure that the discussion will continue. It is important that we understand how many women are having late abortions and why. For example, some women cannot be screened to see whether the baby they are carrying is likely to have severe disabilities until very late in the process, and they may also need some time to think about what to do—which might be not to have a termination. The timing can mean that women have to make very difficult decisions. I do not think that any of the 124 women who have been through that have taken it lightly, and my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury made that point well.
	We must also consider the science—what is and is not possible. I heard on the radio recently about the scans taken of foetuses that appear to be walking or sucking their thumbs, but some of those scans were taken at 12 weeks, so we need to think about what points people are making and whether the debate is about the wider issue of access to legal abortion, and not just time limits. I am sure that we will come back to the issue, perhaps next week in Committee and in future debates.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, South-East asked about definitions of embryos and gametes, which he feels are inadequate. We have announced that we intend to ensure that the definitions used in the legislation are fit for purpose, taking account of the rise of new technology. That is a primary reason for reviewing the legislation. For example, we will ensure that all embryos outside the body are covered by regulation. However, we have made it clear that, in common with the Science and Technology Committee, we have no intention of altering the 14-day limit for embryo research.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, South-East and the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire(Mr. Lansley) raised the important issue of access to fertility services. There has been quite a debate about the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority publishing its own document on different clinics and what they provide. There were calls from across the Chamber—and, I think, from the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough—to look at success rates. The picture is not clear, because obviously the results very much depend on the profile of the people coming through. As with anything, we do not necessarily want a league table; we just need to be mindful of the issue. Having said that, it is fair that people seeking IVF and support should have some understanding of what they should be looking out for in a good clinic. That certainly should be part of the commissioning process.
	I have been exploring further how we might improve the commissioning process for IVF services, both within a primary care trust and perhaps among a group of PCTs in an area, to see how they might commission such services and get better value for money, and perhaps better outcomes and understanding, too. I am pleased to have supported a new project by Infertility Network UK, which we provide with core funding, on ways in which it can work with PCTs to ensure that fertility patients' voices are heard when decisions about services are made locally.
	I am so pleased that the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire mentioned the link between chlamydia and infertility. I have been trying to get the Department and non-governmental organisations to think much more closely about the connections between those two issues, and about why the screening programme for chlamydia is so important. We should do whatever we can to prevent the likelihood of future infertility, and one of the ways we can do that is through better screening for chlamydia; another is by people practising safer sex more regularly.
	We believe that stem cell research offers enormous potential to deliver new treatments for currently incurable illnesses, such as chronic heart disease, diabetes and Parkinson's disease. We want to encourage research exploring all sources of stem cells, including embryonic stem cells. In the March 2005 Budget, the Chancellor announced the establishment of the UK stem cell initiative, a taskforce charged with developing a vision and a costing strategy to make the UK a global leader in stem cell research. It is undoubtedly the case that frustrated scientists in the US who want to do the world some good through such research are coming to Britain to share their expertise and to be part of such an important scientific development, which brings hope to so many thousands of people, and so many future thousands of people, too.
	The hon. Member for Windsor made a point about the decision to remove donor anonymity. We took account of the views provided in response to a public consultation and a further targeted questionnaire sent to clinics and, through them, donors. The fundamental matter was whether it was right to perpetuate the situation whereby donor-conceived people were denied information held on a national database about their donor. Following consultation, we decided that it was not. Again, that is an issue about the rights of donor-conceived children to have some information about their own life and background. We asked some other questions about that in relation to the consultation and we have also been looking into wider issues around information, which we are hoping to share in the near future.
	We have had a wide-ranging debate. Clearly, there is an interest in the subject in the House, of which I have taken note. I have also taken note of the many different points that hon. Members on both sides of the House have raised. As I said before, we should be proud that we have a law that has done a huge service to the development of policy on the subject, both on science and social grounds. However, we have to reflect social as well as scientific changes, and we have to reflect on the best way to get a regulatory authority that has some flexibility, while considering fully Parliament's oversight role for the future.
	I thank everyone for taking part in the debate, and I very much welcome having had the chance to respond to it.
	 Question deferred, pursuant to Standing Order No. 54 (4) and (5) (Consideration of estimates).

Peter Viggers: If the Under-Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs, the hon. Member for Lewisham, East (Bridget Prentice) should catch your eye,Mr. Deputy Speaker, it is possible that she might refer to this matter because she has laid down a timetable within which the work of the boundary commissions will not be transferred to the Electoral Commission, while leaving it open for it to be transferred at a later date. However, I would prefer to leave that to the Minister, who can speak with authority on it.

Peter Viggers: The hon. Gentleman has made his point, but I would prefer to leave that issue to the Minister, who can speak with authority on the matter, if I may. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for making his point.

Peter Viggers: I will be dealing with exactly that point in a few moments if the hon. Gentleman will contain himself. May I just deal with the matter of the Speaker's Committee?
	As there has been some discussion in evidence to the Committee on Standards in Public Life about an alleged lack of transparency in the operations of the Speaker's Committee, I should perhaps note in passing that it was a deliberate decision of the House, welcomed by all the principal parties, that Mr. Speaker should chair the Committee that bears his name. In 2000, the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Bill as originally envisaged, provided for Mr. Speaker merely to appoint members to the Committee. Mr. Speaker's predecessor agreed with the Government that she would become an ex-officio Chairman of the Speaker's Committee, and that decision was welcomed by all the principal parties. The view has been taken that it would be inappropriate for a Committee of which the Speaker is an active participant to meet in public. That is the basis on which the Committee currently operates. There is obviously a trade-off to be made between the degree of transparency and Mr. Speaker taking an active part in the Committee's work. For my part, I have no doubt that the benefit of the authority of his involvement far outweighs the effects of the inevitable but limited reduction in transparency.
	The Speaker's Committee also approves the Commission's five-year corporate plan. The Government intended the functions of the Speaker's Committee to mirror as closely as possible those ofthe Public Accounts Commission in relation to the National Audit Office. They nonetheless had anxieties about how those arrangements would work in practice and included safeguards in the legislation designed to prevent what they described as runaway expenditure. The Speaker's Committee is therefore required to consult the Treasury on both the estimate and corporate plan and to have regard to any advice that the Treasury may give. It must also have regard to the most recent annual value for money report on the Electoral Commission produced by the Comptroller and Auditor General.
	Both the Treasury input and the NAO reports are very much more than a tick-the-box exercise. The NAO typically reports each year on a specific policy that accounts for a significant amount of the Electoral Commission's expenditure, such as its public awareness strategy, on which the NAO has reported to us twice. In many cases, the NAO's choice of subject reflects the concerns that the Speaker's Committee has expressed, so there is a welcome synergy between us. It is also a very transparent input; the Speaker's Committee publishes these reports for all to see.
	The Speaker's Committee has a significant part in promoting understanding between the Electoral Commission and the House. However, it is not the only body with a role in this place. I welcome the fact that various departmental Committees have examined the commission's policy stances on a number of important issues. While it is the duty of the Speaker's Committee to be mindful, on behalf of the House, of what we call the three Es—economy, efficiency and effectiveness—it is open to others to hold the commission to account in the context of its wider interests for its policy stances. The two strands of parliamentary strategy are complementary, not competitive.
	Taken overall, I would submit that there are few tranches of public expenditure of a similar size for which Government are responsible that are subject to the same level of sustained and systematic parliamentary scrutiny as is the Electoral Commission.
	About five years on after the creation of the Electoral Commission, where do we stand? The commission started out with an agenda that its chairman described to the Speaker's Committee in November 2001 as "very ambitious" in relation to its newness and the existing resource level. The commission has grown. Its net resource requirement for 2006-07 is £26.18 million, and it now has an average full-time equivalent staff of 150, compared with 25 in March 2001.
	The commission has thoroughly documented its work in the successive annual reports that it has presented to Parliament. I will comment later on some aspect of its record.
	Over the past five years, the political outlook has changed considerably. The conclusions of the Jenkin's Committee, which clearly had a marked effect on the Government's thinking about the role of the commission, have not been implemented. The electoral modernisation has thrown up real doubts about the wider impact of some of the changes that have been made, such as easier access to postal votes. More recently, the controversy over loans to political parties has raised doubts among the general public over the effectiveness of the controls enacted in the year 2000, and further dented public confidence in politicians and political parties. At the same time the level of voter engagement remains historically low.
	Not surprisingly, this change in political outlook has impacted on the Electoral Commission and raised questions as to whether the original 1991 blueprint still meets the current requirements. Thus some have expressed the view that the commission's remit is too broad and that it would be a more effective body if its remit were concentrated on its core regulatory functions. Others have accused it of lacking political awareness, suggesting that it would be more effective if some, at least, of the commissioners had experience of active politics.
	The commission has had its disagreements with Government on a number of issues—notably on the extent of the piloting of postal voting in the European elections and the acceptability of all-postal voting at elections, and the need for improved safeguards for our current system of postal voting on demand. There is particularly the debate about individual electoral registration.
	In that context, it is worth recalling the key principles on which Henry Samuel Chapman built the first secret ballot law 150 years ago—the rock on which our current system ultimately rests and which
	"by combining secrecy with limited vote-tracing both protected the elector and detected fraud when election results were in dispute."
	People tend to remember the secret ballot and tend not to know about limited vote tracing, both of which are very important.
	That an independent body has a difference of view with the Government over a policy issue is not inherently a problem, but each of these is a sensitive political issue, and there is a risk in these circumstances that such disagreement may lead to a loss of confidence in the political process at a time when there is general concern about overall levels of political engagement. Some, such as the Government in their evidence to the Committee on Standards in Public Life, have therefore raised the issue whether the commission's policy development role continues to be appropriate.
	There have been two general elections—in 2001 and 2005—since the Electoral Commission was established, but the most recent general election was the first in respect of which the relevant provisions of the 2000 legislation, including the provisions relating to notional expenditure, applied fully. For all these reasons, and others besides, it seems right that the opportunity is now taken on a number of fronts to take stock of the arrangements put in place in 2000, and to consider how best to move forward. One contribution to this process is, of course, this debate. I welcome the many Members who wish to participate. If the debate did not start at7 o'clock as we originally intended, I do not think that it is for me to apologise. I am grateful for the attendance. The debate is an important part to the process of discussion.
	There are three other strands that I should mention. The first is the Committee on Standards in Public Life's inquiry, which is currently in hand, focusing on the core issues of the mandate, governance and accountability of the Electoral Commission. In practical terms, this means examining the current responsibilities and the balance between the commission's executive and advisory functions. The inquiry is expected to be completed by the end of the year. I have been pleased to give evidence to it on behalf of the Speaker's Committee. I will do so again, and I look forward to seeing the Committee's conclusions.
	The Speaker's Committee has taken steps to satisfy itself that its conclusions that the estimates and corporate plans that it lays before the House are, in the words of the 2000 Act, consistent with the
	"economical, efficient and effective discharge by the Commission of its functions".
	Those are the three Es that I mentioned earlier. The Committee was itself planning a general inquiry that would have encompassed issues relating to the commission's governance and accountability, but deferred these elements when it learned of the proposed inquiry by the CSPL. Instead, the Speaker's Committee asked the Scrutiny Committee—that is the scrutiny unit at the House—to carry out a detailed study of the commission's business and financial planning processes, how it assesses the effectiveness of policy outcomes and how the statutory roles of the Treasury and the National Audit Office contribute to the discharge of the Committee's duty.
	The Speaker's Committee entrusted this review to the scrutiny unit, which has the necessary specialist expertise to conduct precisely this sort of review. I understand that this is the first exercise of this type that the unit has undertaken. The Committee was pleased with the thorough job done by the unit, and the positive response of the Electoral Commission to the recommendations addressed to it. The Speaker's Committee is still considering the detailed recommendations that the unit addressed to it, designed to improve the effectiveness of its scrutiny. Already, however, it has set up a sub-committee, which I chair, and the Minister is good enough to participate in our discussions. This is to give consideration to the recommendations, and I expect to be putting forward recommendations as to their implementation before the full Committee before the summer recess.
	Finally, there is Sir Hayden Phillips' review of the funding of political parties. It is also relevant to the work of the Electoral Commission. Given the extension of the terms of reference in 1997 to the Electoral Commission, specifically to cover party funding issues, it is perhaps surprising that a separate review was felt necessary as a result of the controversy over loans to political parties.
	I propose briefly to analyse three specific aspects of the work of Electoral Commission, including its record in each and some of the concerns that have been expressed. They are: first, governance and accountability; second, regulatory functions; thirdly, advisory functions.
	In broad terms, the accountability arrangements to the House appear to have worked satisfactorily. As I have already said, the arrangements for regulating its finances have operated effectively, and the run-away expenditure feared by the Government has not materialised. All the existing commissioners whose original periods of office have expired have been reappointed; none of the reappointments has proved controversial in the House. The commission has been to keen to participate in Select Committee inquiries, and this has provided an opportunity for its policy stances critically to be examined.
	Less satisfactory, perhaps, have been the arrangements for the political parties to make an input to the commission. While the political parties panel, constituted under section 4 of the 2000 Act, has provided a mechanism for party inputs at an official level, the parties and the commission appear not to have developed a similar mechanism at a political level. Given that commissioners are by definition people with no political experience insofar as that relates to donations, political employment or standing for election for at least 10 years before their appointment, this has been seen as a weakness, in that the commission has had little exposure to front-line political reality. This, some would argue, has been reflected in the overall way in which it has interpreted its role, and on occasion in the nature of the proposals that it has made.
	In relation to its regulatory functions, the commission has continued to register new political parties. The number on the register has more than tripled since 2001 to 394. The commission has also received and published details of more than 13,000 donations to political parties totalling more than £180 million, and some £86 million of campaign expenditure at six elections and one referendum, since 2001, while investigating where there is doubt about whether the existing rules have been followed.
	A welcome change, for which provision will be made in the Electoral Administration Bill, will be the one-stop-shop for Members, whereby the information needed by the Commission for its register of recordable donations may be drawn from information given to the Register of Members' Interests. However, as the recent controversy over loans to political parties has shown, there is evidence that public confidence in some parts of the political arrangements is fragile at best.
	It is right to record that the Electoral Commission has successfully completed the 126 reviews of local authority electoral boundaries in England that it inherited from the Local Government Commission for England and has implemented all the consequent changes in good time for the next election in the reviewed area. It successfully conducted the regional government referendum in the north-east of England in November 2004.

Peter Viggers: It is for the Government, and not the Speaker's Committee, to take the initiative on this issue, so my diffidence is entirely justified.
	The Electoral Commission has built up a role in providing authoritative advice and guidance to those involved in running our elections—the electoral registration officers and returning officers. It has to be borne in mind that it is the officers, not the commission, who have the direct responsibility. However, we should consider some of the figures being put forward for the number of errors on the electoral roll—both people who are not on it who should be and people who are on it who should not be. Dr. Pinto Duschinsky, in evidence to the Committee on Standards in Public Life, recently suggested that there might be up to 7 million errors—a projection of an estimated under-registration of 3.5 million. That figure is disputed by the Electoral Commission. There clearly remains substantial scope for improvement on that score.
	The commission has also worked hard to promote public awareness of, and participation in, the democratic process. However, it is certainly open to colleagues to comment if they feel that the Electoral Commission need give that area less emphasis in future. That is a matter for colleagues to advise on.
	The Electoral Commission has come a long way in the past five years. It has established itself as a serious and respected player on the electoral scene—from a standing start. It has not been helped in that process by some of the rough edges on the legislative framework—at least some of which arose from the rushed enactment of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000. The Electoral Administration Bill addresses some of those matters, but there remain a number of other issues, such as the qualification for office, which may also be relevant.
	The considerable achievements are a tribute to the hard work and dedication of the Electoral Commission; the chairman, Sam Younger, and his fellow commissioners; Peter Wardle and his predecessor as chief executive; and all the staff. I visited the Electoral Commission recently to reopen their refurbished offices and I was greatly impressed first by the youth of the staff and then, in discussion with them, by their commitment and enthusiasm. They are a good team. I also pay a personal tribute to Dr. Christopher Ward, the Clerk of the Speaker's Committee, who has been enormously helpful.
	I know from the Speaker's Committee's own examination of the commission that the commissioners accept the need to consider at this juncture whether their priorities are clear enough and, in particular, whether they have achieved the right balance between their different functions. As the commission recognises, a key issue that it currently faces is the extent to which the balance between its different roles—between its regulatory and advisory functions—may need to change in the light of the developments since it was first established in 2000. As I said at the start of the debate, tonight is a first. It gives the House an opportunity to reflect not only on the considerable achievements of the Electoral Commission to date, but on how we would like to see it move forward in the light of the challenges that we face in the electoral field and elsewhere. I look forward to hearing colleagues' views. I apologise for taking so long, but there are certain matters that it is important to put on the record.

Alan Whitehead: I, too, welcome the debate. I share the view of the hon. Member for Gosport (Peter Viggers) that it is important. However, as he pointed out, it is the first time since the Electoral Commission was formed that such as debate has been held. In many ways, the arrangements that the Electoral Commission has with the House—in terms of how it reports to the House, how it is scrutinised and how it performs its function—have played the role of an inspired invention. I am talking about resolving through the legislation the difficulty of how such a commission would work—deeply involved as it was going to be in matters that could be politically controversial, even though it clearly should not be politically biased in its own right. How that situation was resolved in the legislation, and the function of the Speaker's Committee on the Electoral Commission in that respect, constituted that inspired invention.
	However, in reality, as the hon. Gentleman said, the Electoral Commission is the equivalent of a medium-sized non-departmental public body. It has a staff of 150 and a budget of £26 million. Normally, as far as the Government are concerned, the structure for such bodies—particularly, say, next steps agencies—will be a parent Department, a framework agreement and a series of relationships with that Department in order to specify how the accountability is to be undertaken. No such framework exists for the Electoral Commission. There are a number of other unique elements of that relationship with the House, which do not in any way parallel the relationship of any other body of similar size.
	In practice, the Speaker's Committee has performed something of a scrutiny role towards the work of the Electoral Commission through its meetings. However, as the hon. Gentleman said, those are not held in public. He gives understandable reasons for that, but it does have something of a result. The Speaker's Committee accidentally, rather than deliberately, scrutinises what the Electoral Commission is doing. We have an indirect form of running accountability to the House, through the short time allotted to questions to the Chairman of the Speaker's Committee each month.
	I ask myself whether the commission might be more formally scrutinised through the medium of a Select Committee, as a departmentally attached agency might be. I can suggest a candidate for that role: the Constitutional Affairs Committee, of which I am a member. In any event, the Chair of that Committee, or a Committee designated by the legislation, sits on the Speaker's Committee by statutory authority. It might be possible for the Speaker's Committee to change its function. It could take upon itself a scrutinising role through the appointment of senior Back Benchers to form a scrutiny committee. Perhaps a good alternative would be for that Select Committee function to be more formalised in connection with the way in which the Electoral Commission works.
	The hon. Gentleman also mentioned what I think is a very restrictive definition in the legislation of who may be appointed as an electoral commissioner, or even an assistant electoral commissioner. It is enshrined in the legislation that if a person is to be appointed to such a post, they cannot have been a member of a political party or held any form of office in one, and cannot have been employed by a political party or, indeed, have been a named donor to one. It is understandable that a number of those restrictions may be imposed, but it is perhaps less known that also set out in the legislation are similar if slightly less onerous restrictions on all members of staff of the commission. Therefore, almost the entire commission will never have had any dealings with political parties, certainly not for a very long time.
	As the duties and responsibilities of the Electoral Commission lie at the heart of the functioning of the democratic system of government in the UK, and political parties are an integral part of that, the involvement in the political process of the electoral commissioners and the staff of the Electoral Commission is a pertinent question to consider. As I have said, those who put themselves forward as candidates for the post of electoral commissioner are outside the political process, and it might be necessary to readdress the legislation, but the question that arises is whether there should be additional commissioners appointed through the medium of political parties, or whether the nomination of commissioners in its own right should be addressed. After all, political even-handedness is not the same as political celibacy. It would be beneficial to the functioning of the Electoral Commission if the position on the political involvement of both commissioners and staff were reviewed.
	As the hon. Member for Gosport also mentioned, the Electoral Commission has devoted a considerable proportion of its resource not just to regulating elections but to the promotion of electoral awareness and to providing information on the practice of elections and referendums. Within the terms of that remit, it has promoted electoral awareness well, but it must be said that the limitations have meant that only one area has been addressed—voter disengagement, and the issue of not knowing what to do about voting in an era of what one might say are atomised families who might previously have gone to the polls together.
	The results of the commission's audit of political engagement show, however, that other factors are at work. In particular, there is a distaste for voting among those in their 40s, not just among the newly enfranchised. The question of whether such distaste results from the inability of parties to engage voters or from a more problematic anti-politics societal norm is a difficult one to answer, but either way it presents the Electoral Commission with a difficult task if it is to promote voting on a wider basis than simply providing information about how to do it. In essence, the challenge is one of promoting the norms and necessities of democracy and politics themselves, which might be considered outside the commission's remit.
	In considering what the commission does to advance awareness of the electoral process, it is tempting, therefore, to argue for a bifurcation of that promoting role. There certainly is a need for information and reminding, and for research into the process of voting—certainly about whether the present geographically based system of casting votes is seen to be appropriate to new generations of voters, and whether changes in its structure can overcome other issues such as the security and integrity of the vote.
	However, the process of argument about the role that politics plays in democracy in the UK and why the political process, including elections, is important might be a remit too far for the commission, and the development of political democracy foundations similar to those established in Germany, such as the Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung and the Konrad-Adenauer-Stiftung, which represent the Social Democrats and the Christian Democrats respectively, might be a better course of action to address the issue. That would entail, of course, the development and resolution of the argument about state funding for political parties, since the establishment of such foundations could not be seriously contemplated within the present structure of voluntary funding of political parties.
	That brings me to the role of the commission in policing the regulation of political parties and the control of campaign finance. Other Members have mentioned that the Electoral Commission has in general been relatively effective—within, frankly, a flawed regulatory brief—at implementing and policing the recording and controlling role. The commission has been less effective in the regulation of donations to political parties, partly because of its own issues about asking questions about donations that might be considered at the margins of its remit, and partly because of the limitations of that remit itself.
	The question that might be asked of the Electoral Commission is this: what exactly does it regulate? Its name suggests that it regulates elections, but its practice suggests that it regulates the conduct and practice of elections and the functioning of political parties where they relate to elections. As elections are an important but by no means the sole activity of political parties, that entails the close regulation of some party activity relating to the democratic process, but no regulation of other matters, even where those matters are closely connected. For example, the registration of parties in order to nominate candidates is regulated, but the process of nominating candidates for elections is not. The activity of such candidates once nominated may be regulated, provided that it is within the period of an election, but the activity and funding methods of adopted candidates outside an electoral period is not regulated.
	In reality, political parties do not make such distinctions, and in any event they do not operate financially and in soliciting and managing donations in identical ways. Therefore, it may be said that the first problem arises from an implied assumption in the legislation that UK political parties are in essence machines for electing people to posts—essentially the American party model—and the second problem arises from an apparent assumption by the Electoral Commission that, provided certain reporting rules and accounting conventions were laid down, it would be possible to gain a coherent picture of parties' funding and hence donations.
	The Conservatives and the Labour party do not work, and never have worked, in identical ways. The ways in which the parties fund themselves differ fundamentally. The Conservative party was formed in Parliament and gained supporters' associations that raised money for the party, while the Labour party was formed outside Parliament and operated as both a federation and a centralised party, combining funds in the middle in order to get into Parliament.
	The regulation of donations by the commission therefore often fails to record accurately the real income of parties and does not pick up innovations such as the recent funding of local parties outside the campaign period to promote nominated candidates with the use of money that might otherwise be declared as central donations. Proper regulation under those circumstances would probably entail an extension of the assumption of regulation of political parties generally, and might therefore also entail a required operating standard for political parties themselves. That might call into question the reasonable right of political parties to organise themselves in the way that they feel is best appropriate to their political and geographical circumstances. Regulation that covered the whole range of party financial activity, locally and nationally, regardless of the method of organisation, might be more appropriate, and certainly a more transparent and understandable way for the Electoral Commission to discharge its regulatory function effectively in future.

John Horam: In today's estimates debate, it is appropriate to consider whether the Electoral Commission is giving the taxpayer value for money. I believe that it could improve the service it provides and reduce its costs if it took certain steps, which I shall outline.
	The commission employs about 150 people. I acknowledge the tribute that my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Peter Viggers) paid to their enthusiasm and youth—I was glad to hear that—and to the excellent role played by the chairman. The commission costs the taxpayer approximately £26 million—a figure that could be cut by up to a half immediately if the commission accepted the suggestion inherent in the remarksmade by the hon. Member for Southampton, Test(Dr. Whitehead), that all the activity to encourage participation is well beyond the role that the Electoral Commission can realistically be expected to perform. The fact is that, as I am well aware following my recent involvement in the by-election in Bromley and Chislehurst, participation in general elections and in local elections is affected by very different matters from putting an advert on the side of a London bus telling people to go and vote and giving them more information. The issue is far wider and bigger than that, and, to be frank, the Electoral Commission is wasting its time getting involved. The activity was imposed on the commission by the Government—it was not in its original remit—and I think that the commission should get well clear. Quite apart from anything else, that sort of marketing activity requires different skills from the regulatory role that is the commission's core business.
	The commission should concentrate on its core business. As we know, it has taken a conscientious and straightforward approach in advocating individual registration and personal identifiers. The fact is, however, that the Government have in large measure refused to implement those measures through the Electoral Administration Bill. At that point, the commission should have had the robustness to say openly that the Government, to their credit, set it up precisely to take such delicate issues out of party politics but then, when the commission made sensible proposals, the Government voted them down, and that is to fly in the face of the logic of setting up the commission in the first place. The Government have adopted a nonsensical position and the Electoral Commission should have been more robust in making that plain. I realise that there are difficulties in the way of the commission making those points in public with force. None the less, it should have tried, especially in view of the information dug up by my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald) about the advice given on the Government's consultation document by various Labour consultees that are in favour of individual registration and personal identifiers. That was brought out dramatically in our last debate on the Electoral Administration Bill, and I am pleased because it shows that there is support, not merely from the official Opposition, the Liberal Democrats and the minor parties, but from the Labour party for that sort of sensible improvement. As we have always said, Britain and Zimbabwe are the only countries that do not have individual registration, and it is ridiculous that it should be so.
	Several hon. Members have spoken about the Speaker's Committee and accountability and their points were well made. With due respect to the efforts of my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport, who has done a conscientious and comprehensive job, as has the Speaker's Committee, whose independence and neutrality we accept absolutely, the fact is that the Speaker's Office and the Speaker himself have many, many other responsibilities. The amount of time that the Speaker and the Speaker's Committee can devote to these issues is limited. I do not know how many times the Committee has met to consider the matter of the Electoral Commission, but I suspect that the number of such occasions is quite small in any one year. That suggests that, as the hon. Member for Southampton, Test said and my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Mr. Tyrie) has said on more than one occasion, we need to examine the arrangements for accountability to this House. Various suggestions have been made—some rather complicated—but the matter should be grasped as soon as possible. The present arrangements are not entirely satisfactory, even though the Speaker's Committee is very conscientious.
	As my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes(Mr. Steen) pointed out, with great force, in his intervention, the whole business of whether the Electoral Commission should take over the work of the boundary commissions is a total mess. It is profoundly unsatisfactory and there seems to be no clear decisiveness about what will happen.

Barbara Keeley: No.
	The Committee on Standards in Public Life is conducting an inquiry into the Electoral Commission and has asked about the balance of the division of responsibilities between the commission and other public bodies when promoting public awareness of, and participation in, elections. The balance is not working well at present. Propensity to vote, which is a key aspect of the Electoral Commission's targets 2 and 3 on the increased or maintained likelihood of voting, is measured at 52 per cent. Surprisingly, the most recent report shows that the commission did not until this year establish measures of public awareness on how to cast a vote, where to find out about practical arrangements for voting, and why it is important to vote. Those are key measures to have waited six years to establish.
	So we have very low levels of public awareness of, and declining levels of involvement in, our democratic process. On target three, the percentage of the public who feel that they know about politics has fallen from 45 per cent. to 39 per cent., so the key indicators are in decline.

Barbara Keeley: No, I do not agree. I have been heavily involved in a single-issue organisation—Amnesty International—for more than 20 years. Indeed, my husband used to chair the local group, but when he gave it up nobody else was willing to do it. Despite claims of increasing membership of such single-issue organisations, we found that, in the entire borough area that we served, it was very hard to get six, seven or eight people even to attend meetings. People will sign the odd postcard and send messages on the internet, but they will not contribute in various ways to the running of such organisations. That happens not only in political parties and single-issue campaigning groups, but in scouts, guides and volunteering organisations. So I do not agree that the problem lies with political parties; it is a problem in our society that the Electoral Commission was charged with addressing, but which it has not addressed fully.
	A further question relating to the Electoral Commission is governance, which has been touched on, and I want to comment briefly on the restrictions on who can be an electoral commissioner or, indeed, work for the commission. My hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test (Dr. Whitehead) raised this issue and I agree that the situation needs to be reviewed. There is growing recognition that the restrictions are unworkable. A national body is charged with regulating political parties and their finances—a complicated issue, currently—advising those involved in elections and reporting on major elections; yet knowledge and experience of party structures, organisation, fundraising and campaigning are disqualifiers for either governing, or working for, that body.
	In that context, the Electoral Commission would perhaps have benefited from establishing a robust relationship with political parties. When the Constitutional Affairs Committee asked questions on this subject of Sam Younger, the chairman and chief executive of the Electoral Commission, last November, we were surprised to find out that that had not happened. When questioned about the commission's being politically naïve—as it was put to him—he admitted that the commission had forged a working relationship with only one political party, meeting quarterly with the Conservatives' 1922 committee of Back Benchers. I found it astonishing, and I still do, that an independent body charged with regulating parties and their finance had, in effect, developed a working relationship with only one party.
	Since that shortcoming was identified, there have been a number of informal meetings with MPs, which I and other Labour Members have attended. Sam Younger will soon meet Members of both Houses to discuss this issue and to see whether a way forward can be established. However, the fact remains that, five years after we established the Electoral Commission, it had not forged working relationships with the political parties until members of the Committee on which I serve queried that point. So as with the crisis in registration, static or falling turnout and low levels of political engagement, the time must be right to re-examine restrictions on the governance of, and staff employment in, the Electoral Commission, so that it does not continue to be politically naïve by design.
	The issues to which I have referred have been highlighted over the past eight to nine months, and since then there has been recognition of gaps in performance. It has perhaps been a question of too little, too late on registration, as I have outlined, but rather more has been done on trying to bridge the gap between the commission and political parties. I hope that these improvements continue and gather pace, so that, in the new situation following the passage in a few months' time of the Electoral Administration Bill, there will be a greatly improved Electoral Commission.

Andrew Tyrie: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Peter Viggers), who gave an outstanding speech setting out what the Electoral Commission has been doing and putting the case for it extremely well. I shall be critical of the Electoral Commission, but the chairman does a very good job and is an outstanding man. We should bear in mind that it is a new institution that has been messed around by some well meaning but ill thought out Government initiatives and incomplete and defective legislation.
	The Electoral Commission was created because the Committee on Standards in Public Life said that the oversight of elections should be neutral and should be seen to be neutral, so the task should be taken away from the Home Office. The case for doing so was never adequately made. The Home Office system was not ideal. It gave the governing party an opportunity to rig elections but, in a typically British way, that rarely happened. Indeed, there was rarely even a controversy about the system. One would not recommend such arrangements for Guatemala or the Ukraine, but they seemed to work in the United Kingdom. The old system was also cheap, and this is an estimates debate, as my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington(Mr. Horam) pointed out. However, we cannot put the clock back.
	Any change that we make must be subject to one overriding test: does it contribute to the securing of consent from the electorate to the result? With that, we will get an increase in democratic interest and respect for democracy. Without it, we are on the slippery slope to anarchy.
	It is difficult to argue that the early years of the Electoral Commission have bolstered consent. Examples to the contrary are legion, such as the commission's failure to get to grips with the service voters farrago. It is astonishing that we allowed ourselves to get into the position where we effectively disfranchised a large proportion of our service voters by mistake. The Electoral Commission was alerted to that extensively by me before the election, as was the Government, but they did hardly anything about it. Another example is the postal votes scandal. The Electoral Commission was originally bright eyed and bushy tailed about extending postal voting. It was far too weak and slow in flagging up the crisis that was developing, which we could already see early on as a result of the pilots.
	There is the risk of another problem being generated now in relation to the reform of the boundary commissions. If the Electoral Commission is to have such responsibility, it must open up a public debate immediately to ensure that a vote is worth the same—that is, that seats are of equal size—throughout the United Kingdom. We cannot carry on with the moribund system that was put in place after the second world war.
	There are several other examples, I regret to say, of the Electoral Commission's failure to grasp the nettle adequately. I agree with the hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Dr. Whitehead) that we still do not really know how parties obtain their money. We are supposed to have more transparency, but we have had only a little more. The Electoral Commission should be pressing vigorously and in public debate to make sure that all necessary information is available.
	I also worry that we have inadvertently created the conditions in which the Government can behave as though they had been absolved of their obligation to act impartially, as they had when they had responsibility directly through the Home Office. The Government—any Government—can abuse the system more effectively now by claiming that they have been open to independent advice but, having considered it, have set it aside. That is exactly what happened with regard to postal voting.
	All the functions that I have described are core functions of the Electoral Commission. I deeply regret that the commission seems to have involved itself far too much in what one might call not the bread and butter, but the jam—that is, the much more interesting work of encouraging greater participation and understanding of the democratic process. We have had a stream of reports and initiatives on that. It is worth pointing out that when the Committee on Standards in Public Life began the process, it did not recommend that this role should be given to the Electoral Commission but argued that the core tasks given to the commission were already sufficient to do the job. I am not convinced that the problem of voter participation will be dealt with by anything undertaken by the commission. That work will almost certainly turn out to be a waste of money.

David Kidney: After the downbeat assessment of the hon. Member for Chichester (Mr. Tyrie), I am happy to follow with a sunnier and more optimistic view of the Electoral Commission. I enjoyed the account by the hon. Member for Gosport (Peter Viggers) of his recent visit to the commission's premises. He does not need telling that one is definitely old when one thinks that even Electoral Commission staff look young. He needs no reassurance from me that, behind chief executive Sam Younger's boyish good looks lies a shrewd, intelligent and experienced operator.
	Is it only five years ago that we legislated to set up the Electoral Commission? It is such an obviously sensible thing to do and a constitutional necessity in a democracy such as ours. The public now take the commission for granted, as though it had always existed. I am sure that they found it interesting on the first occasion to learn, after the 2005 general election, the cost of the then Leader of the Opposition's make-up or of the Prime Minister's wife's hairdressing, but, like other hon. Members who spoke, I hope that, after future elections, people will focus more on the serious issues of the source of money and its use.
	It is fair to make criticisms of the new organisation's role so far, and some hon. Members have done that. I am sure that the commissioners and members of staff are not too proud to learn from us and other observers where they are going wrong or to try to make reforms to put that right. The debate on the subject and the two reviews that are currently taking place, which have featured so often in other hon. Members' contributions, are timely. It is a good time to speak about how well some things have gone and how others need attention and change. However, I do not agree that one of the Electoral Commission's statutory responsibilities should be removed.
	The Electoral Commission has several statutory responsibilities, which I would hesitate to rank because they are all important. Perhaps, after the most recent controversy about parties using loans instead of donations for funding, openness and transparency in the financial affairs of political parties attracts people's attention. That is one of the Electoral Commission's responsibilities and includes registering political parties, monitoring and publishing significant donations to parties and regulating their spending on election campaigns.
	Beyond that, the Electoral Commission has important responsibilities such as reporting on the conduct of elections. We should pause and think about the reports that we have received in the few years since it was set up. They include reports on elections—not only two general elections but local elections and the pilot schemes for different ways in which to organise voting in local elections, for example, through setting up polling stations in popular places such as shopping centres, organising all-postal ballots or attempting electronic voting and counting. These all make a valuable contribution to our understanding of what works and what does not, and to encouraging more voters to come out and take part in the democratic process. The assessments from the commission have helped us in our understanding of these approaches.
	The Electoral Commission has done its job in identifying the weaknesses in the postal voting system since the acceleration in the use of postal votes, and it has made recommendations to the Government on the issue. In fact, when we pass the Electoral Administration Bill into law, we shall be enacting some of the commission's recommendations on making postal voting more secure in this country. We ought to give credit where it is due in that regard.
	An important role for the Electoral Commission in the next few years will be to oversee the implementation of the new legislation. For the first time, consistent guidance will be given to all electoral returning officers and, also for the first time, the commission will be able to insist that the same information be supplied by all electoral returning officers. In a recent discussion that I had with Sam Younger, he told me about requests for information that he had made to returning officers to enable him to compile his reports. He said that some authorities had not even replied, because they were under no statutory obligation to do so, they were busy with other things, and did not regard it as a priority to give him the information that he needed. That will change under the new legislation, and the commission will be able to get the information that it needs to compile its reports, so that people like us who are interested in these matters will be able to read them afterwards.
	A good point was made about the slowness of the response in regard to service personnel, but the commission would probably say in its defence that this is an extremely complex issue and that it has made recommendations to the Ministry of Defence. So far as it is able to play its part in promoting greater awareness of the electoral system among service personnel and the importance of their registering to vote, wherever they are in the world, the commission is doing its job.
	I want to talk about the statutory responsibility to promote public awareness of our electoral systems. I disagree with the hon. Member for Orpington(Mr. Horam)—and with the hon. Member for Chichester in so far as he agreed with the hon. Gentleman on this matter—in that I believe that the commission has an important role to play in promoting such awareness. I am not saying that that should be a substitute for our doing our job of making politics interesting, making ourselves trustworthy and attracting lots of people to come out and join the democratic process. However, there is a role for the commission to provide independent expertise, advice and information to those who want it.
	I shall give the House an example of this working in other areas, where other regulators have more than simply a regulatory role. The Financial Services Authority—another Labour innovation since 1997—has a statutory obligation to promote financial understanding. The Food Standards Agency operates in a completely different area of policy, although, curiously, it has the same initials. It is another Labour innovation since 1997, and has the role, alongside enforcement and regulation, of promoting knowledge and understanding of healthy and safe foods. Those examples show why the Electoral Commission should have a role in promoting public awareness. It can be trusted, it is independent and it can be authoritative in providing information.
	I commend the work that the commission already does in that area. Contrary to what the hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr. Jackson) said in an earlier intervention, education in politics and citizenship has not been part of the national curriculum until recently. In fact, such education was established in 2001, and it is now part of the compulsory curriculum for all secondary schools. One strand of citizenship education is political literacy, and the Electoral Commission has contributed to the teaching of that subject throughits "Democracy Cookbook", a valuable source of teaching aids for teachers and others in a learning environment. I therefore congratulate the commission on its work in that role.
	Like other Members who have spoken, I think that the Electoral Commission has done its job well as a committee on local government boundaries and is worthy of taking over that role for the boundaries of our constituencies, too. The adage that we should walk before we run is sensible, and if the Minister tells us that there is still a little more walking to be done before the sprint stage is reached, I shall take her advice. The commission is earning its spurs, however, and I am sure that it will in due course be a reliable reviewer of constituency boundaries.
	With regard to referendums, the commission has the primary responsibility for their conduct. On the small number of occasions on which it has exercised that role, the commission has done extremely well—although perhaps the Government have not enjoyed the result of one of those referendums—in overseeing the conduct of the referendums, setting up the parties for the yes and no camps and ensuring that the question is fair. I foresee quite a call on its services in conducting further referendums in future.
	Looking to the immediate future, a lot of work will be done on electoral registration and raising the practices of all local authorities to the level of the best, both in the registration of people's entitlement to vote and their ability to cast their votes in local and national elections. The two reviews being conducted at present will lead to recommendations to us to amend the 2000 Act, and I gather from tonight's debate that there will be a willingness to consider sensible and well-thought-through recommendations for change to that law, some of which will be welcome. When we come to legislate, I hope that we will consider not just the receipt of money by political parties but the spending of it, especially between formal elections in this country. I would like to see annual limits on spending introduced and perhaps, as my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House says, an end to the arms race in political spending in this country, with some flexibility in the years of general and European elections.
	It is easy for Members of the House who disagree with the Electoral Commission's recommendations to say, "We are hardened politicians and we know this business; they are all novices," because those on the commission are not even allowed to have an experience of politics, as that debars them from being a commissioner or member of the senior staff of the organisation. That is a criticism, and it undermines the authority with which the commission speaks to us, the politicians. I am one of those who supports a change in the rules about who may be a commissioner or senior officer of the commission, and a lifting of the bar on people who have modern, relevant political experience. That could benefit the whole organisation in providing an understanding of what we are about, what is practical and what will not pass through this place. Ultimately, that would benefit the commission and our country's democracy.

Angus Robertson: Like others, I would like to concentrate in the short time available on something that has not yet been mentioned: the oversight of by-elections. By-elections have been in the news in England and Wales, but I would like to share an experience of a recent Scottish Parliament byelection that I think should give all Members of the House cause to consider how elections are conducted. In meetings with the Electoral Commission, I have already suggested ways in which the commission should look at the issue.
	There is a juggernaut heading in the direction of politics in this country which I find disturbing. It comes through the effective trebling of spending limits in by-elections to £100,000. The political campaigning time is as short as possible; most parties think it to their advantage to call short campaigns in a byelection. As we all know, with some imagination, £100,000 can go pretty far.
	I would like to make Members aware of some of the most dubious campaigning techniques that are being used. Again, I will concentrate on my experience in the Moray byelection, where only two months ago, there was a byelection to replace Margaret Ewing, who many people in this House will remember served here between 1974 and 1979 for East Dunbartonshire and between 1987 and 2001 for Moray.
	It is important to point out that I am raising the issue not out of sour grapes, because at the by-election my party secured its biggest ever majority. It was our most successful campaign ever. I am not going to go into how bad it was for other parties, but it was not good for them.
	The campaigning spending in that byelection was published last week. The Conservative party spent £91,000, the Lib Dems £42,000, the Scottish National party £33,000 and the Labour party £10,000. What happened in that by-election? The Conservative campaign was launched on the day of the cremation of Margaret Ewing. The majority of the materials used by the Conservative party, which has traditionally been the main challenging party in Moray, did not contain the word "Conservative" or "Tory". Clearly the impression was trying to be created that its candidate, Mary Scanlon, who had been of high standing as a Conservative Member in the Scottish Parliament for the Highlands and Islands, was "another bonnie fechter", creating the impression that she was following in the footsteps of a Scottish Nationalist. It is beyond credibility. Posters were put up on lampposts throughout the constituency without mention of the party's name.
	The real shocker was that apparently handwritten letters were sent to constituents that claimed to be from independent councillors who never gave their permission for their names to be used in the campaign. That led to headlines on the front pages of Scottish newspapers describing the Conservatives' campaign as "deceitful".
	The Conservatives were closely followed by the Liberal Democrats, who produced materials that claimed that the SNP candidate was from Aberdeen. That is not true. He does not live in Aberdeen. Indeed, he lived in the same parliamentary constituency as the Liberal Democrat candidate, who was described as "local". I have given the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey (Danny Alexander) notice that I intended to raise this issue. Clarification has been sought of why such misinformation was used repeatedly in campaign materials, despite the fact that it was established as not being true. Two months later, I still await a reply from the hon. Gentleman.

Simon Hughes: No, by all parties, if the papers can be used to support the party in any way. We could have that dispute, but I shall be happy to continue the conversation outside.
	However, there is nothing wrong with asking the Electoral Commission to look at by-elections, which is the relevance of this debate, and I have no objectionto that. I share the view that has been expressed on both sides of the House and elsewhere that party expenditure is properly an issue for the commission. In many ways, I regret the fact that that job was suddenly taken from the commission's remit and given to Hayden Phillips—not that I have anything against him, but it seems logical to give the commission the task of looking at spending. There is clearly an issue in respect of the spending that starts in seats—whether the hon. Gentleman's seat, mine or any other—not just a month before the general election, but six months, a year or two years before. That is local spending, although it is technically disguised as part of a national budget. All those things justify giving the Electoral Commission the responsibility of looking further at expenditure.
	I welcome this debate on the Electoral Commission. My colleagues and I are grateful to the Liaison Committee for proposing the first debate of this kind. We each have a maximum of 10 minutes for our wind-ups so, on behalf of my party, I shall simply make the points that I think are most important. I apologise to colleagues, therefore, for the fact that I cannot reflect on all the other contributions.
	The proposal for an Electoral Commission was a good one and we supported it. It is right that the commission came into existence; it has done an important and good job and we support its continuance. The commission has spent a significant amount of money, but that has been scrutinised. Apart from one year, when there was a critical comment about some of the spend, the scrutiny process has endorsed the commission as having spent its money wisely. That is a good commendation, much better than what we hear in many areas of public life, not least Departments such as the Home Office.
	The debate plays into the review undertaken by the Committee on Standards in Public Life, which was the genesis of the Electoral Commission, and is thus especially timely. Like the hon. Member for Gosport (Peter Viggers) and others, I have given evidence to the Committee and we await with interest its conclusions at the end of the year. Like the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Kidney), I come in to bat strongly in favour of the Electoral Commission. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) said, both on his own behalf and reflecting the views of his Committee, when the Electoral Commission proposes something, the assumption should be that it has the authority to carry the day unless there is a strong argument against it. But that requires two or three things to happen.
	First, a minority of the commission's members should be from political backgrounds, because that will provide the antennae and there will be authority from inside and outside. Nobody will be able to say, "You don't know what you're talking about—it's not like this in real life." The real life element will have been inserted. I am clear that that should happen.
	I am clear, too, that the structure of accountability, which was conceived for the best of reasons, needs to be reformed, so that it becomes a fully open and accountable process of scrutiny and moves from the present position whereby the Speaker, quite properly, cannot participate fully, because it would be prejudicial to his role as the independent guardian of the House's interests if he were to express views. Therefore, whether with Mr. Speaker or his successors, we need to find another structure to open up the process.
	Such things should happen in open forum and the minutes should be recorded, and the Committee might therefore meet more often and be able to take more political responsibility. That would pick up some of the issues raised by the hon. Member for Worsley (Barbara Keeley) and other hon. Members. Any failings—for example, on service voting—might have been picked up much more quickly and action taken much more rigorously. It would have helped the Electoral Commission to do its job better. I can see no disadvantage—but, yes, there must be a minority of political appointees. Four such appointees in a commission of eleven or more would seem entirely appropriate.
	One topical debate is still going on: we are debating whether personal identifiers should be part of the registration and voting process, and the Electoral Administration Bill is still before Parliament. My view is that if the Electoral Commission makes a proposal, there should be a mechanism whereby that proposal comes to the House, and that if the Government want to amend the proposal, that is seen as a Government amendment to the independent proposal. We will need to find a mechanism whereby that legislation could be promoted, for example, by the Committee and given special status. That is not impossible and there are parallels in other legislatures.
	The next big question is whether Electoral Commission has tried to do too much, and whether it has concentrated on the right things. My judgment is that it has sought to do what it thought were the relevant things. There are some very good election reports on all the major elections, including on specific sub-issues, such as expenditure at certain elections and the electronic counting of votes, which was tried for the first time at the London elections. Some good policy reports have added to information. An example of one of the ones that matter is the funding of electoral services, which are often underfunded by local authorities.
	There is an argument that political advertising should be subject to the Advertising Standards Authority.  [ Interruption. ] Seriously—I have argued for that on many occasions before. Those are real issues, on which the Electoral Commission should be able to do the work. I would not join those who say that it must do only its core job; it can do other jobs too, and it has done them well, by and large. It is clear that it chose to concentrate on party funding. That is very important; the electorate want the reforms to be made. Mercifully, we are moving in the right direction, but we are not yet there.
	There has been a set of exchanges about the boundary commission reviews. The hon. Member for Gosport (Peter Viggers) confirmed that the boundary commission review of local government boundaries in England had been done well. I am clear that the Electoral Commission should take over, as soon as possible, the review of UK parliamentary boundaries, and I am clear that there should be one UK parliamentary boundary commission for this Parliament. That would save a lot of money to start with. We would not necessarily get constituencies of absolutely the same size. There are some very good Scottish examples. In my view, it would be illogical for the Western Isles, and Orkney and Shetland, as well as Anglesey in Wales not be seen as natural constituencies. However, the same principle could and should apply across the UK. If there is a case for smaller electorate in a very depopulated or rural area, that principle should be seen to apply equally in Scotland, England, Wales and Northern Ireland, but we must not continue with different electoral norms for this Parliament in the four countries. That is no longer acceptable. We should have the same electoral norm for this Parliament, other than for exceptions that could arise in any of the four countries.
	I want to make two last substantive points. What key issues are now on our common agenda? One of them is to ensure that we increase the number of people who are not only registered but vote—an issue that has been raised by other colleagues. A guy called Gordon Spencer, whom I met at an organisation in my constituency, has recently undertaken, as part of his degree, a piece of research based on my constituency, focusing on what makes people turn out to vote, or why they do not vote. I have a copy of that, and it contains examples of the information that we all need. The information shows, most tellingly, not that people were uninterested but that there were practical issues that made a difference. For example, people were away on the day and had not registered for a postal vote; polling stations were not in convenient places, and were not open for long enough in the day. There are many practical answers to the question of how we can increase the ability of the electorate to participate in elections, and we should do that. We are moving in the right direction, but we have a long way to go.

Oliver Heald: I did not agree with that. However, some themes have come out of the debate—for example, that the Electoral Commission should have more authority. I agree with the hon. Member for North Southwark and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes) and with my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Peter Viggers) that it would be wise for the people on the board of the commission to have some political experience, provided that it is not so much as to be overbearing—a modest amount of political experience, which is balanced. That would be a good thing.
	I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Mr. Tyrie), who said that the commissioners should do less and do it well. I think that the commission is at its best when it is working from experience in an area at the core of its functions. I would like to see it do more of that and less of the work on the margins.
	I am pleased that we are having an annual debate—or are we? It is certainly nice to have the first debate. I have said for some time that it would be useful to have an annual debate about the Electoral Commission. I hope that that will happen in future. I agree with the hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Dr. Whitehead) that we need more scrutiny. However, I would like the commission to remain independent and to report to Parliament. I would not want to see it come under the aegis of the Department for Constitutional Affairs.
	I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport, who opened the debate. He does a good job and handles sensibly his role in representing the Speaker's Committee in Parliament. He takes much trouble with hon. Members if they ask a question. He will often ask them whether they want further information over and above the answers that have been given. That is much appreciated. I join the tributes that have been paid to Sam Younger for the work that he has done.
	The issue of the Boundary Commission is a difficult one. I have some doubts about the idea of the Electoral Commission taking over the work of the Boundary Commission. That is partly because I see the work of the Electoral Commission more as a regulator than as an executive body taking forward work such as drawing lines on maps. I would like to see the Electoral Commission considering how the Boundary Commission functions and making comments, based on experience, of what lessons can be learned. There are some points to be made about the figures that are used and whether they are sufficiently up to date.
	The process of Boundary Commission reviews is long and some improvements could be made. However, if the Electoral Commission is doing the work, there is a risk that some of the exercises that we would expect from a regulator will not be followed through.
	I agree that the boundary committee and the various boundary commissions should come together in one UK-wide body that has particular expertise. In terms of the period over which the Electoral Commission has been working, five years is a good point at which to have a reconsideration. We cannot be entirely complacent. Obviously it is right to say that some good work is done by the Electoral Commission, but if one looks at, for example, the integrity of the ballot and the public perception of that integrity—that must be an important test for the Electoral Commission after five years—many people would say that the standing of the ballot in Britain is probably at its lowest for many years. I notice that, today, the Electoral Commission has brought out its report on the last local elections. It reports that, again, allegations of fraud were a feature of the local elections in 2006, and that the public's perception of whether postal voting is safe from fraud and abuse has fallen from 51 per cent. thinking it is safe or very safe to just 37 per cent. thinking that. We cannot be complacent about the way in which things are working.
	I agree with the hon. Member for Worsley (Barbara Keeley) that there is great concern about the number of individuals who are registered. There are some areas where there is a registration desert. The only point that I would make to her is that the levels of registration are unchanged from 10 years ago. A Government who have been in power for nine years have to take some responsibility for the fact that there has been no significant improvement in levels of registration over that period. Nothing has been done so far to ensure that people are actively canvassed and that data are matched—things that we know can be done, from the experience in Australia.
	On party funding, I agree that there is an important role for the Electoral Commission. I was as surprisedas the hon. Member for North Southwark and Bermondsey that the Government did not choose the Electoral Commission to do the review that Sir Hayden is now doing. As I said at the time, although we have the highest respect for Sir Hayden and his background, the truth of the matter is that we are talking about something that is the core work of the Electoral Commission. One would expect the commission to be doing the job.
	As far as by-elections are concerned, I am perfectly happy for the Electoral Commission to look at that. That is an important suggestion. The idea that it is a disgrace—I think that this is the point that the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Mr. MacNeil) was making—to describe your candidate as a bonny fighter in a by-election is extraordinary. It is particularly unfair of him to make that point with such a good candidate. I certainly do not agree with him about that.
	This is a short debate and I can make only a short winding-up speech. If one looks at the overall picture, the worry is about the integrity of the ballot. There has been no shortage of advice about that. It is true that, over the period, the Electoral Commission has changed its mind about postal voting and it has come to individual voter registration rather later than some of us, but its advice has been clear over recent months: we need individual voter registration and identifiers if we are to have a clean system in this country and to get rid of the fraud. It is extraordinary, and a disgrace, that the Government have not been prepared to take the advice of the body that they set up for that very purpose. All the other parties in the House, with the exception of the Scottish National party, which seems to have thrown a wobbly on the issue, agree that we need individual voter registration and we need it now. It is a disgrace that the Government have not done that.

Angus MacNeil: Will the Minister give way?

Bridget Prentice: No, because I must leave time for the hon. Member for Gosport to speak at the end of the debate.
	Sam Younger has already set up small panels on matters such as candidates' expenditure and fraud, so he may well be open to setting up a group of the type that I have described.
	On fraud, in its press release on its report the Electoral Commission states:
	"The majority of people (55%) did not think that electoral fraud was a problem at the elections, although allegations of electoral fraud and the way candidates fought their campaigns were a key feature in some areas and in the media.
	Those who felt fraud had been a problem said they were influenced by media coverage (51%) rather than first hand experience (4%)".
	Perhaps the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire will bear that in mind. He continually bangs the drum and suggests that electoral fraud is widespread in this country. It is not.
	Where the commission should report is a tricky issue. The commission sees many benefits in reporting to the Speaker's Committee, which highlights its independence from Government. The chairman of the Constitutional Affairs Committee, the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith), made a good point when he said that his Committee will of course want to examine some aspects of the Electoral Commission's work, so it should have a role. I ask the House to wait to see whether, as a result of the evidence that is put before it, the Committee on Standards in Public Life takes a view on whether it would be more appropriate for the Electoral Commission to report to a body other than the Speaker's Committee. I assure Opposition Members that the Department for Constitutional Affairs is not suggesting that it should take that responsibility; we would much prefer it to be left to some aspect of Parliament.
	Finally, let me say a few words about the future. Since its inception, the Electoral Commission has been successful in meeting its wide-ranging remit. There have been differences of view on policy in some areas, but that has not prevented an effective partnership, and those differences are a sign of the commission's independence. We believe that the Electoral Commission's operational role is crucial and probably the area in which, in the next few years, it can add most value to the running of elections and democratic services between elections.
	As we have said in our evidence to the Committee on Standards in Public Life, the Government have developed a stronger policy-making capacity since 2000, so it might now be appropriate for the Government to lead in policy development and for the commission to concentrate on ensuring that electoral services are delivered successfully. Meanwhile, we shall continue to involve the commission, administrators and other stakeholders in policy and legislation development to ensure that the electorate's needs are being met. Another area in which it might be time for change is how to ensure that, while retaining the commission's independence, there is political input into its work—a point that was raised in the debate.

Peter Viggers: With the leave of the House,Mr. Deputy Speaker. On behalf of the Speaker's Committee, I thank all the participants in the debate, which is particularly well timed in view of the inquiries that are now taking place. All the comments that have been made will be noted. In so far as any relevant facts have been raised, I shall ask the chairman of the Electoral Commission to write to the hon. Member concerned. Finally, let me say again that we are extremely grateful to the Liaison Committee for allowing this debate to proceed.
	 It being Ten o'clock, Mr. Deputy Speaker proceeded to put forthwith the Questions relating to Estimates which he was directed to put at that hour, pursuant to Standing Order No. 55(1) and (4) (Consideration of estimates).

Gerry Sutcliffe: I am happy to write to my hon. Friend. Clearly, I want to ensure that the fullest possible information is in the public domain and I shall therefore place a copy of the letter in the Library.
	I said that there were 11 bereavement cases for which the authority had not yet received any applications. As I said earlier, the victims of 7/7 and those bereaved by the bombings also had financial support from the London Bombings Relief Charitable Fund. The Mayor of London and the British Red Cross set it up in the immediate aftermath of the bombings. The Government donated £1 million to the fund in July 2005 and we announced last month that we were donating another £2.5 million to it, so that the trustees could give further assistance to the bereaved and injured of the 7 July London bombings.
	Before that second Government donation, the fund had made more than 900 charitable grants, totalling more than £8 million, to more than 300 individuals. It now expects to be able to make another 200 to 300 charitable grants, and I believe that many such grants have already been made to those who were seriously injured or bereaved.
	To complete the picture, I remind hon. Members that we also passed regulations in 2005 so that payments from the London Bombings Relief Charitable Fund are disregarded for the purposes of assessing entitlement to means-tested state benefits. We have, of course, thought hard about what can be learned from these dreadful events. We had already been examining ways in which to improve the criminal injuries compensation scheme before the 7 July bombings. However, the events of 7 July obviously highlighted specific problems with the scheme, especially the process involved, the length of time taken, and the amount of the payments, particularly in the serious cases. That is why the Government made a donation of £3.5 million to the charitable fund, which has been able to make payments on a more flexible and quicker basis than a statutory scheme. We have learned lessons—for example, that there needs to be a clearer policy for making interim payments, and that discretion should be used when possible to allow practical common sense to prevail, within the rules of the scheme.
	We know that the scheme in its current guise isnot perfect. That is why we undertook a public consultation this year, with proposals for refocusing the scheme to increase amounts of compensation for those most seriously injured, while providing more immediate local help and practical support for those whose injuries were less serious. We will publish the results of that consultation exercise later this month and announce our plans for reforming the scheme before the summer recess.
	Let me consider the points that the hon. Member for Bournemouth, East made. One of the problems with the statutory scheme is that it was not designed for the sorts of events that happened in Bali or, indeed, those of 7/7. Supporting the charity was the best way in which to introduce some flexibility into the system. However, I know that the concern that the hon. Gentleman raised about terrorist tragedies throughout the world is widespread. Perhaps we can meet him and people who support his cause to ascertain what we can do in future to try to find the best way in which to provide immediate practical assistance to individuals at home and abroad. I undertake to consider that. Clearly, we are now living in a world that is more dangerous than ever before, and it is important that we address the situation by giving support to the people who need it as quickly as possible.
	The CICA arrangements are in place, as I have said. I understand what my hon. Friend is saying: we should try to process these issues as swiftly as possible. I have tried to explain that that is what we want to do, despite the difficulties that we face in regard to the rules of the scheme. By supporting the charity fund, we have been able to provide some flexibility, however. We are looking at the future of the scheme and at what needs to be done. I hope that my hon. Friend will accept my explanation. I will write to him on the issues that he has asked me about, and I hope that the House will understand what the Government are trying to do.
	 Question put and agreed to.
	 Adjourned accordingly at twenty-five minutes past Ten o'clock.